Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:11:00 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Romain_Tarti=E8re?= <romain@blogreen.org> Subject: Re: TeXLive Message-ID: <4EA24254.1040905@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E92F6F9.4050403@missouri.edu> References: <BLU0-SMTP2267D68635365B77502657993FC0@phx.gbl> <20111009212024.4a0e443e@silver.nine> <4E925F6A.3080700@missouri.edu> <20111010082927.GA32070@blogreen.org> <CAF6rxgmQkFgeR00hZUvnJ6F65joC=a%2BTw6Zsay4qKnOHnJgraw@mail.gmail.com> <4E92E3D4.5020700@missouri.edu> <4E92F6F9.4050403@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/10/2011 06:45, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > On 10/10/11 07:23, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >> On 10/10/2011 06:44 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>> >>> Are there any plans on getting these committed to the mainline ports >>> tree? I'd be willing to work with you on that. >> >> I agree with Eitan. I don't see a reason why texlive shouldn't make it >> into the mainstream ports. > > Also, someone might object that it introduces 2000 ports into the print > category. But as a counterargument, www and devel have similar numbers > of ports. If there are really 2,000 ports for texlive then perhaps it could be its own category? That way those of us who still use csup to maintain our ports trees could exclude it wholesale. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EA24254.1040905>