From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 17 19:24:38 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71318106564A; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:24:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from me@janh.de) Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.186]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75598FC18; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:24:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nb981.math (31-18-144-171-dynip.superkabel.de [31.18.144.171]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lx3gz-1RsCKl0Nhp-016Sey; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:24:30 +0200 Message-ID: <4FDE2EE9.5020602@janh.de> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:24:25 +0200 From: Jan Henrik Sylvester User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120609 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Schultz References: <20120530204502.5cab974c@desktop.pc> <20120617060135.GA7986@zim.MIT.EDU> <4FDDC73A.3090203@janh.de> <20120617163218.GA10776@zim.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20120617163218.GA10776@zim.MIT.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Vn3VUVJ4w+12W+zklonJirXJjOFkpWOxskGsr6UC2FC UPaW/pq0IDeWU5mCV0UeSm/86deNfFW3W+q0HuXhPl3/Jrwoti TZFcDVcY4Z/MsKXV2Rry79xIFG77RwuuqrZte2wbrQd19DsBh/ YiMDHyGvFGtduR1RgG+c+3VWDYRkj9dkGH2rhRMNho+t02r5vR Y+yElCecDNWkJTZl0HEakk8mQl1vhslVZWOAC3lXNZzXuVP7ft Q19cE60/GX1gL+s0GWu7/2JFVg+y/TlsYYvO83MvfUeM/C3e8S S6ZL5dzivQHwtzXmWZOnpNA3HOeLQ7O4i2HiNzKd+/Xn/rFfg= = X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:49:12 +0000 Cc: hackers-list freebsd Subject: Re: TeXLive merge into FreeBSD ports tree - FreeBSD project idea X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:24:38 -0000 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