On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 08:54:45PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 00:31 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:28:38PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > > > I know Rex Dieter likes the errata package idea. I wonder what others think? > > > > I think that such decisions should be left to the packagers, as long as > > it is not obviously wrong. A bit like split choices. > > Hey, OOo dictionaries are big... let's make errata packages for them > differently for updates. Maybe for the data for $game, too. If it makes sense for a specific package, yes. > ... > > I think that this is a pretty bad idea for us to follow down. Much like > we package perl modules natively rather than telling people to use CPAN, That's a different issue, still use rpm here. > we should be handling updates to packages natively rather than errata > packages that stand along-side. In genenal, yes, but leave it to packagers when they feel strongly about it. For texlive it may make sense. > If the argument is size and space, then > help out with testing presto and getting the support into the > buildsystem so that we can have it enabled by default and helping for > *all* packages rather than just a select few that have built their own > way of doing things I am not sure that using presto is the answer here. Doing a texlive errata package solves more than the space issue. Moreover at any point the errata may be integrated in the main rpm. I don't know texlive a lot, but, in the general case using a trick like an errata package may help updating only part of the package when upstream releases errata and keeps a monolithic package otherwise. -- Pat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
