On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 20:07 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > "MM" == Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> 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 complete distribution. There aren't
too
many examples of that around.
My proposal was to machine-generate the individual specs and have
FESCo
grant an exception to have them reviewed in a block. The hardest
part,
of course, would have been the licensing, except that texlive had
undergone a rather complete license audit and every single file has
been
cleared. I don't know if that's still valid.
I don't see a practical difference in the licensing between any
arrangement of the same files, so long as we're ultimately packaging
the same files. Whether one file in a single package of 16,000 files
has a license issue, or the same file in a 5-file package that's part
of a 3200 package collection has a license issue, we still have the
same license issue.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net