Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:24:25 +0200 From: Jan Henrik Sylvester <me@janh.de> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: hackers-list freebsd <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: TeXLive merge into FreeBSD ports tree - FreeBSD project idea Message-ID: <4FDE2EE9.5020602@janh.de> In-Reply-To: <20120617163218.GA10776@zim.MIT.EDU> References: <CACsYpVMrR1aDDM5k9t8c%2BLRdnEL5yR761L7D6er0gM=1F9i4ww@mail.gmail.com> <20120530204502.5cab974c@desktop.pc> <20120617060135.GA7986@zim.MIT.EDU> <4FDDC73A.3090203@janh.de> <20120617163218.GA10776@zim.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 06/17/2012 18:32, David Schultz wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012, Jan Henrik Sylvester wrote:
>> Quite a few conflicts and changes in dependencies are needed for
>> TeXLive. TeXLive does not just replace teTeX, but also ports like
>> freetype-tools, t1utils, jadetex, etc. I have patches for all ports I
>> use, which has been working for me for half a year. If TeXLive and teTeX
>> were supposed to exist in ports in parallel for some time, something
>> like bsd.tex.mk would be needed with a generic way to specify tex
>> related dependencies. Maybe this would be useful for the transition
>> period, since we probably would not want texlive-scheme-tetex to replace
>> all teTeX dependencies, but many people disagree that having both TeX at
>> the same time in ports would be a good idea.
>
> Right, so like I said, having the knob in the tree would be a
> useful first step, even if TeXLive isn't ready for inclusion.
> (I'd be surprised if there's a good reason to have multiple
> versions of things like t1utils, but that's a separate issue.)
I do not understand what you precisely mean with a knob as a useful
first step.
If we do not create a generic way to specify tex related dependencies
(USE_TEX=core t1utils tocloft), we need to decide that TeXLive will
eventually go into the tree the way Romain created the ports to be able
to depend on print/texlive-core, print/texlive-tocloft, etc.
Or what other way to introduce dependencies are you thinking about?
It is not possible to simply use print/texlive-core instead of
print/teTeX, not even print/texlive-scheme-tetex is enough as teTeX
includes more than that scheme currently gives. At the same time,
print/texlive-core replaces more than just print/teTeX: I have a list of
about 10 ports I had previously installed, which conflict with TeXLive
but have their functionality provided mostly by print/texlive-core as
far as I need it (except for building misc/freebsd-doc-*, which I cannot
fix).
For the ports I use, I have patches that introduce dependencies like
this one in devel/doxygen:
.if exists(${LOCALBASE}/share/texmf/scripts/texlive/tlmgr.pl)
BUILD_DEPENDS+=
texlive-scheme-tetex>=0:${PORTSDIR}/print/texlive-scheme-tetex \
${LOCALBASE}/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/tocloft/tocloft.sty:${PORTSDIR}/print/texlive-tocloft
.else
BUILD_DEPENDS+= dvips:${PORTSDIR}/print/dvipsk-tetex \
latex:${PORTSDIR}/print/teTeX
.endif
Even with a knob instead of checking if print/texlive-core is installed,
it would put a lot of mess into the ports tree. Some maintainers will
not agree to introduce these conditions, if there is no general
agreement that we want to transition to TeXLive that way.
As far as I remember, both romain@ and hrs@ have stated that they do not
want both teTeX and TeXLive in the tree concurrently.
Cheers,
Jan Henrik
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FDE2EE9.5020602>