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 p
On 2015-03-30, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "GH" == Gerd Hoffmann 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
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
> 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?
TeX
> "GH" == Gerd Hoffmann 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 reason fo
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.
2015-03-28 16:40 GMT-03:00 Florian Weimer :
> * 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 po
* 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 f
2015-03-28 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jonathan Underwood :
> On 28 March 2015 at 15:07, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> 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
>> https://abf
On 28 March 2015 at 15:07, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
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
> https://abf.rosalinux.ru/openmandriva/texlive-tlpkg/blob/master/tlp
2015-03-27 16:58 GMT-03:00 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
On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 20:07 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "MM" == Matthew Miller 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 y
> "MM" == Matthew Miller 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 packaging a comple
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
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Matthew Miller
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 really something
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 allowe
> "KL" == Kalev Lember 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 has a
bette
On 03/27/2015 05:49 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "KL" == Kalev Lember writes:
>
> KL> If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could
> KL> maybe ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging?
>
> The texlive pac
>>>>> "KL" == Kalev Lember 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 use
19 matches
Mail list logo
