[Fedora-packaging] Texlive packaging and "Errata packages"
pertusus at free.fr
Tue Aug 7 01:01:29 UTC 2007
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.
More information about the Fedora-packaging