On 24 July 2012 14:21, Dr. Werner Fink <werner(a)suse.de> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 03:06:30PM +0200, Ruediger
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
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
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":
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(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner(a)opensuse.org