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.
--
Pat