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 guess the biggest problem for people to put more effort into fixing > TeXLive in FreeBSD ports is the huge disagreement about how a final > solution should look like. > > OT: FreeBSD might be more behind than others, but others have trouble > with TeXLive in their native packaging system, too: Nothing never than > TeXLive 2009 made it into Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. Yep, it's a giant mess. IIRC Ubuntu ships the most popular TeXLive schemas as separate packages. Doing anything more fine-grained than that seems unmanageable, especially since dependencies among TeXLive packages aren't tracked properly. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
