Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:02:59 +0100 From: Ulrich Spoerlein <uspoerlein@gmail.com> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: albert.shih@obspm.fr, dougb@FreeBSD.org, nikola.lecic@anthesphoria.net, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: TeTeX and TeXLive Message-ID: <20071219210259.GA1567@roadrunner.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <20071216.225955.111308887.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <20071214025230.361715eb@anthesphoria.net> <alpine.BSF.0.999999.0712132243270.5964@ync.qbhto.arg> <200712150123.lBF1N35T038677@anthesphoria.net> <20071216.225955.111308887.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 16.12.2007 at 22:59:55 +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > This is a progress report from the current teTeX maintainer who is > trying to update TeX in the ports tree to TeXLive. As I explained, > if we go with the finer-grained package model, over 1000 ports have > to be added at a time, so testing them should be done in a separate > tree at least. I hope I will be able to set up a public tree for > testing and collaborative work this month... >=20 > Any comments are welcome. Thanks. As I'm not doing any work, my vote doesn't count, but please: Creating 2-3 *big* TeXLive ports is certainly wrong, but creating 1000 tiny ports is equally wrong. Think about the repo bloat and churn introduced by a "single" software like a LaTeX system. It will slow down everything from cvs checkout, to index building and pkg_info(1). Can't you split the TeXLive Distribution up into say 12 ports? Something minimal that can be used by other ports to typeset documentation (how common is this, anyway?) and 3-4 big TeXLive ports for the typical TeX user. Cheers, Ulrich Spoerlein --=20 It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak, and remove all doubt.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071219210259.GA1567>