From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 22 06:19:23 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF42D1065675; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 06:19:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail.allbsd.org (gatekeeper-int.allbsd.org [IPv6:2001:2f0:104:e002::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B69F98FC0A; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 06:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from alph.allbsd.org ([IPv6:2001:2f0:104:e010:862b:2bff:febc:8956]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.allbsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9M6J4Sg085682; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:19:15 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by alph.allbsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9M6J1G3012788; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:19:03 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from hrs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:18:50 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20111022.151850.1529987542582588666.hrs@allbsd.org> To: romain@FreeBSD.org From: Hiroki Sato In-Reply-To: <20111011101902.GB14910@blogreen.org> References: <4E92E3D4.5020700@missouri.edu> <20111011101902.GB14910@blogreen.org> X-PGPkey-fingerprint: BDB3 443F A5DD B3D0 A530 FFD7 4F2C D3D8 2793 CF2D X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3.51 on Emacs 23.3 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="--Security_Multipart(Sat_Oct_22_15_18_50_2011_440)--" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97 at gatekeeper.allbsd.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (mail.allbsd.org [IPv6:2001:2f0:104:e001::32]); Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:19:17 +0900 (JST) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.2 required=13.0 tests=BAYES_00, CONTENT_TYPE_PRESENT,MIMEQENC,QENCPTR2,RDNS_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on gatekeeper.allbsd.org Cc: stephen@missouri.edu, lists@eitanadler.com, hrs@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: TeXLive X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 06:19:23 -0000 ----Security_Multipart(Sat_Oct_22_15_18_50_2011_440)-- Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Romain Tarti=E8re wrote in <20111011101902.GB14910@blogreen.org>: ro> Hello! ro> = ro> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:23:48AM -0500, Stephen Montgomery-Smith = wrote: ro> > On 10/10/2011 06:44 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: ro> > > Are there any plans on getting these committed to the mainline = ports ro> > > tree? I'd be willing to work with you on that. ro> > = ro> > I agree with Eitan. ro> = ro> I would also be pleased to see TeXLive in the FreeBSD ports (obviou= sly). ro> There are a few issues to sort out before however: ro> - The way TeXLive sources are distributed is not convenient: all ro> binaries are built and installed from a single sources tarball.= ro> This leads to the "big" print/texlive-core but really lacks ro> scalability. Back in 2008, Hiroki Sato was working on splittin= g all ro> this AFAICR. Hiroki, I added you in Cc, can you please tell us= if ro> you had any progress on this topic? I feel guilty about this because although I had/have several prototypes and plans to integrate TeXLive into the ports tree, it have not actually happened so far. There were two obstacles in the work. One was there were technical issues (compatibility-related) that prevented some existing TeX-related software we had in the ports tree from working. This was in around 2007 but solved now. Another one was how many ports we should have for TeX-related software. After testing several prototypes including a single port version, a set of ~2000 ports (one port for one macro), ~150 ports, or ~30 ports, I think it seems good for us to have one of basic utilities, one for basic (stripped-down) macro sets as something like texlive-core + texlive-texmf, and the others for optional macro packages. The basic idea is the same among them regardless of the total number of ports. In practical, 100 would be the maximum number. So, primary issues described above were basically solved. Although there are still trivial issues such as handling of a large distfile, it is not difficult to solve. However, how to handle updating a macro package in the basic port is a problem to me and time passed when I was thinking about that. More specifically, currently we have many latex-* and tex-* ports to install new macro packages or override the default ones. It becomes complex over time. Committing a single large TeXLive port is easy, but I do not want to create the same situation again in the new world and want consistency for updating a macro package in the distribution. So, I wanted some compatibility with TeXLive's package management utility (tlmgr). Unfortunately it was too premature when I first looked into it (around 2007, IIRC). The current version is much better than before, but I still need some investigation about that. If we have or use reliable package catalogs of CTAN including file lists of each macro package via tlmgr or something, we can take an approach like BSDPAN, I think. A version based on TeXLive 2011 with a small number of ports can be committed if we ignore the last concern and clean up the current teTeX-related ports. Any comments about that? I am very sorry for being unresponsive to many people who contacted me about that... -- Hiroki ----Security_Multipart(Sat_Oct_22_15_18_50_2011_440)-- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAk6iYEoACgkQTyzT2CeTzy2TZgCeNcl5/HmmhN2DVc7OArxLPzlg 5mQAn1MRPCaGd5gO/jlWwqSPfT+fjM2d =Fk1+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ----Security_Multipart(Sat_Oct_22_15_18_50_2011_440)----