On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 9:07 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczko.tomasz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 24 March 2018 at 03:14, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [..] >>> BTW In situations like this is possible to observe how really bad idea >>> was building ALL Fedora +5.6k texlive* packages from single sec file. >> >> Except that is no longer the case. texlive-base only has ~120 or so >> subpackages for each arch and also most of the packages that are deps >> for other things. The larger 'texlive' package is now a noarch package >> that doesn't need to be rebuilt very often. > > Looking on texlive-base.spec I see ~180 packages but it is really > tiny/minor detail. > > $ grep ^%files texlive-base.spec -c; grep ^%package texlive-base.spec -c > 182 > 181 > > Good to know that (re)building all other ~5.5k texlive packages is > perfectly OK now .. > Rhetorical question: is it any and/or at least one good reason why > those ~180 texlive-base packages using ~350 source tar balls must be > (re)built always together? Personally I think the better question is why popplar has to break it's ABI so often? I mean it's not like the PDF spec is evolving that quickly, why is it so terrible and unstable that is has to change so much? I mean I'm sure I've seen java script implementations that have less churn than it! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
