Tom Callaway venit, vidit, dixit 11.11.2011 21:31: > On 11/11/2011 03:19 PM, José Matos wrote: >> OK, it is that time of the year again... :-) >> >> Now that F-16 is out (and in good shape FWIW) the question comes again. >> >> What needs to be done for texlive to be imported in to rawhide (to be F-17)? >> >> Personally it is very difficult to justify that one of Fedora motto's >> "First" can be applied to texlive-2007 in 2012. :-D >> >> I know the amazing work done by Jindrich to have texlive in shape and >> according to Fedora guidelines, so what is the extra mile that needs to >> be crossed to have texlive-2011 in F-17? > > Legal audit, as I've said before.
Of course, and people could have looked that up. Yet that leaves many wondering what in texlive-2011 is less legal than texlive-2007 is, which is being carried forward to current releases no matter what. If legality is a matter of the packaging rather than the packaged content then why don't we package texlive-2011 like texlive-2007 - but really, what notion of legality would that be: Monolithic is legal when split packaging is not? I am sure there are good answers to these questions, but I don't see them communicated on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/TeXLiveLegalAudit, e.g. Unfortunately, those fp wiki pages also seem to be out of date a bit, and raise other questions, for example about the font policy (LiberationSans-Regular.ttf is in gcstar, FlightGear-data and liberation-sans-fonts, e.g.). So, I think that making sure that the same policies apply to all packages, and communicating the reasoning would actually help in raising user contributions. I mean, we don't need coders here - any .*TeX user can contribute. [Working updmap thingy would help acquire more early adopters also... I might give it a shot on F16.] In any case, thanks to everyone who's helping with this. Michael _______________________________________________ TeXLive mailing list TeXLive@linux.cz http://www.linux.cz/mailman/listinfo/texlive
