Jindrich Novy wrote:
What's wrong with it? It is autogenerated, you are not supposed to touch
the spec file directly but edit texlive.spec.template and regenerate the
spec file by tl2rpm. All subpackages are generated with correct
dependencies (at least according to upstream metadata) and
On 2015-03-30, Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote:
GH == Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com writes:
GH Makes sense to me, not only for texlive, stuff like perl pkgs from
GH cpan have pretty standard way to be built too.
It's not just how the packages are built. There are also bundling
Hi,
If FPC would be open to bulk-approving machine-generated individual
spec files (given, say, they're provably all following the template,
which would be reviewed), and rel-eng has some way of bulk-adding the
necessary branches and builds, that really seems like a step forward to
me.
GH == Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com writes:
GH Makes sense to me, not only for texlive, stuff like perl pkgs from
GH cpan have pretty standard way to be built too.
It's not just how the packages are built. There are also bundling and
license issues which require manual inspection. The only
On 03/27/2015 05:22 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* However, I'll note that the recent texlive updates were security as
* * well. ;)
*
If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could maybe
ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging?
TeXLive packager says: No, sorry.
Kevin
Hello,
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
Actually machine generated isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of
effort and should be done more (for other packages too where
possible).
Why waste man power for something that can be automated?
As for tex ... we could
* Matthew Miller:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
Actually machine generated isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of
effort and should be done more (for other packages too where
possible).
Why waste man power for something that can be automated?
As for tex ... we
2015-03-28 16:40 GMT-03:00 Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de:
* Matthew Miller:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
Actually machine generated isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of
effort and should be done more (for other packages too where
possible).
Why waste man
On 28 March 2015 at 15:07, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com wrote:
I maintained a slowly evolving approach in Mandriva for some years,
(but now it is quickly approaching one year I left Mandriva...), see the
main script at
2015-03-27 16:58 GMT-03:00 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
Actually machine generated isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of
effort and should be done more (for other packages too where
possible).
Why waste man power for
2015-03-28 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Underwood jonathan.underw...@gmail.com:
On 28 March 2015 at 15:07, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com wrote:
I maintained a slowly evolving approach in Mandriva for some years,
(but now it is quickly approaching one
KL == Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com writes:
KL If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could
KL maybe ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging?
The texlive packaging is basically the way they were required to do it
way back when. It used to be just a big ol
KL == Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com writes:
KL What do you mean with were required to ?
There were many discussions during and after the big texlive license
audit as to how to properly package the software. I can no longer
remember exact dates because it's been a while; maybe someone else
On 03/27/2015 05:49 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
KL == Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com writes:
KL If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could
KL maybe ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging?
The texlive packaging is basically the way they were
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:34:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Personally I preferred the thousand package review scenario, but that
never happened. Having a small number of subpackages, however, was
never really something we on the packaging committee, at least, would
have allowed.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
Actually machine generated isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of
effort and should be done more (for other packages too where
possible).
Why waste man power for something that can be automated?
As for tex ... we could have a srpm
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:34:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
Personally I preferred the thousand package review scenario, but that
never happened. Having a small number of subpackages, however, was
never
MM == Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org writes:
MM Basically, this is an end-run around the requirement of doing
MM individual package reviews for a zillion completely separate
MM packages, right?
That was my opinion, but you could argue the same for Perl, I suppose.
We're essentially
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 20:07 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
MM == Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org writes:
MM Basically, this is an end-run around the requirement of doing
MM individual package reviews for a zillion completely separate
MM packages, right?
That was my
19 matches
Mail list logo
