[tex-live] question about archive naming scheme

[Gergely Gábor]

On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 05:07:32PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> 
> > Why do they lack any hint to the version of the package contained in
> > the archive?
> 
> Because this information is in the accompanying texlive.tlpdb, as well as in the tlpobj file in the archive.
> 
> File names don't give any guarantee.
nor does an accompanying file containing this data.

> 
> 
> > This make packaging the software a painful expreience.
> 
> I'm packaging TeX Live now since five years, of course it is not easy, but not out of the reason you state.
I guess you are not using a source based package deployment system, so
you need the archive to be available only when creating the binary
package you deploy to the users. But with a source based system (like
that of NetBSD, the pkgsrc) the archives must be available sometimes
even a year or later too. But what i have seen at the tex sites there is
no versioned archive available such as that of the linux, netbsd, or any
other at least minimally sane software archive (CTAN claims to be one
such). The netbsd pkgsrc, the freebsd ports, or even the gentoo portage
are doing packaging since more than 5 years, so stating how long have
you been doing something is a totally useless point in an argument,
especially as your practice is totally bad for the above mentioned,
older projects.

> 
> > and have different checksums.
> 
> md5 sums are also in the texlive.tlpd
which is totally useless, should you have read my previous mail, and
have understood what i wrote, as i have written down:
These packaging systems need a given, _tested_ version of the source
archives. The sums could prove that a source is authentic, but how can
one get an older version, that is _known to work_, as this a principle
idea of the software deployment. Not to mention that the authenticity of
the file you keep sums in can not be checked, as it is not signed by a
trusted key, and the mirrors can be out of sync, 

> 
> I recommend to read all the documentation before complaining, the structure is fully documented, and we are distributing since some years now in this way without probkems derived from our namin scheme.
Then please point me to some such documentation, that can show me the
rationale behind this. But until that i also would like to point You to
something to read:
http://tim.oreilly.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/03/31/packaging.html
I suggest the distribution file part for reading and considering.
> 
> Enjoy
> 
> Norbert

-- 
Bízzál Istenben, és tartsd szárazon a puskaport!
Put your trust in God, and keep the gunpowder dry!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/attachments/20100920/314c276b/attachment.bin>