On 24 July 2012 14:21, Dr. Werner Fink
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Ruediger Meier wrote:
Hm, for my understanding we are using rpm binary packages to have more comfort and speed. If we have now thousands of texlive packages which slows down any rpm related operation and makes it more complicated for the usual user who just wants to have working tex stuff then mission has failed.
What is the benefit of having all these separate texlive rpms? I'd say the usual user will install either all or none anyway.
Smaller TeXLive installations like it upstream, Debian, and RedHat. I had several bug report in past to follow the package upstream scheme and now I've done it.
IMHO rpm as well as libzypp as to be fixed to be able to do posttrans scriptlets as described in the current rpm manual.
If you would use rpm standalone without zypper in *one* transaction for all texlive packages it would be much faster. The only problem is that rpm can not expand dependencies like libzypp.
Beside this: ever read rpm source code, if you think about comfort and speed ;)
Where would be the benefit of a --noposttrans option? ZYpp could just install all the packages in a single rpm transaction. But don't hold your breath: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2011-04/msg00339.html In any case, Werner is correct and that's something we would like to have anyway for other things (updating GTK icon cache, etc.). The fix/feature, whatever the form, is missing in libzypp... I didn't look at the TeXLive packages, but as a workaround perhaps you can use "update scripts": http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Maintenance/Code11/Howto#Out_of_transaction_... Last time I checked they weren't exactly the same and were badly underdocumented, but perhaps in this specific case they can help. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org