Hi, Jindrich Novy has been preparing texlive packages for F8 for a while now, and there are essentially 3 RPMs: telive (the binaries) texlive-texmf (the texmf tree) and texlive-texmf-errata The one I am concerned about is telive-texmf-errata. As Jindrich says "This is the errata package for the TeXLive 2007 formatting system. The purpose of this package is to support updates to huge texmf tree without a need to download all the texmf tree again, but to ship only the fixed parts. texlive-errata puts updated files into a seperate texmf tree which is searched prior to the main tree so there are no conflicts between texlive-errata and texlive-texmf packages." I think this is a totally different packaging paradigm - as far as I'm aware there's no precedent in Fedora 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. It feels a bit like the ever increasing number of hotfixes you get installed on an M$ system (although there would never be more than a single texmf-errata package installed at a time of course). I know Rex Dieter likes the errata package idea. I wonder what others think? Cheers, Jonathan -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
