Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: texlive-texmf-errata - Errata for texlive-texmf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229182 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx 2007-04-16 06:03 EST ------- Hi Jindrich, While I understand your separate packaging of errata follows upstream, I think that packaging errata in this way for Fedora needs some discussion. This is a totally different packaging paradigm - as far as I'm aware there's no precedent for issuing errata packages rather than updated packages. A far better alternative IMO is to have finer grained subpackaging of the texlive texmf tree, such that updates don't replace the whole thing. That of course has other major advantages, such as allowing smaller tex installs. Also, to have *two* system managed texmf trees searched is a big change, and something else that system admins have to think about when they add their own local texmf trees. Put more bluntly, while I understand the convenience from a packagers point of view, this seems like a really ugly way to package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review