On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 17:33:00 +0100
Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczko.tom...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 14 October 2016 at 16:02, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote:
> > Making personal attacks or calling people names is not acceptable.
> >  
> Did I call someone name? .. hmm ??

Yes, as Adam noted you called people morons. Don't do that. 


> Q: not who accepted this but WHY? Why someone not refused to move
> more 5k packages after single build request?


> If it is true .. maybe can someone help me to understand intention
> packaging texlive like it is now?

I can try and provide history here. ;) 
Disclaimer: This is just what I remember, it could be wrong. 

Texlive is unique. It's very handy and used, especially in the
publishing and educational areas, so it's important to provide it in

There's a number of similarities between texlive and perl's cpan or
pythons pypy. It's a large collection of smaller packages that work
with each other. However, it also has at least one big difference from
those other collections: They do (about) yearly releases of the entire
collection because it's very interrelated. Also, perl and python
communities grew up around their packaging, so there's a large number
of people packaging projects up as they are added. Texlive started as a
free fork of tetex, so it appeared with tons and tons of packages and
no community to package each little part up. 

Long ago when texlive was replacing tetex, the first thing that had to
happen was a legal review of all texlive. This took years and lots of
people. Once that was done it got an exception to come in as one source
package and lots of subpackages for all the reasons above. The orig
maintainer had a program that generated the spec file, but they have
long since moved on. Tom has taken over updating it recently and has
done a lot to improve the spec. Yes, there have been bugs or issues,
but sometimes thats the nature of things. 

So far this year: 
Added lines: 49387 Removed lines: 270572 Total # of lines: -221185

So, Tom has removed 221k lines from there. I think thats a pretty good
tally of improvement. 

So, focusing on positive actions here:

* Perhaps we could split things up a little. I have often wondered if
  just splitting things in 5-10 packages could help, but I would
  absolutely defer to Tom here since he's been doing the work and he
  was my sponsor 10 years ago and knows more about packaging than I
  ever could. 

* If you have specific ideas for improvements, do file bugs and attach
  your patches or explain what you think would help. I'm sure he would
  love to hear it. 

Further than that I would wait for Tom to chime in... 


Attachment: pgp8rHEJA1nss.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to