On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Germano Massullo wrote:
> Did you try to ask them to include all TeXLive packages that are
> available from upstream? If not, I can try
there are lots of licenses to audit, per sub-package, and
dependency trees of matter limited to non-commercial and so
forth
-- Russ
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015, Germano Massullo wrote:
> You can simply re use the collection of texlive-scheme-full for Fedora
> (non EPEL)
One would assume so, but I found dependencies on non-free bits
in there
-- Russ herrold
___
epel-devel mailing list
Il 23/11/2015 23:22, R P Herrold ha scritto:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015, Germano Massullo wrote:
>
>> Did you try to ask them to include all TeXLive packages that are
>> available from upstream? If not, I can try
> there are lots of licenses to audit, per sub-package, and
> dependency trees of matter
>
> Would it be easier to request the RHEL packages to add a virtual
> Provides for the python2-* name? That is, python-setuptools in RHEL
> could provide python2-setuptools.
>
Probably.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284754
John.
Excerpts from John Dulaney's message of 2015-11-19 17:11 -05:00:
> Since Fedora is now requiring python2 packages have a buildrequires
> of python2-setuptools, I put together a quick metapackage(0)(1) that in turn
> requires python-setuptools. This will make packaging for Fedora and
> epel to be
> "DC" == Dan Callaghan writes:
DC> Would it be easier to request the RHEL packages to add a virtual
DC> Provides for the python2-* name? That is, python-setuptools in RHEL
DC> could provide python2-setuptools.
I can't imagine Red Hat going through all of the
On 11/23/2015 06:00 PM, Dan Callaghan wrote:
Excerpts from John Dulaney's message of 2015-11-19 17:11 -05:00:
Since Fedora is now requiring python2 packages have a buildrequires
of python2-setuptools, I put together a quick metapackage(0)(1) that in turn
requires python-setuptools. This will