Le 17/12/2007 à 11:02:45+0900, Hiroki Sato a écrit
> Bakul Shah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> ba> Why not add TeXLive port even as it is, so that people can
> ba> play with it? As for modularization, I hope you don't go the
> ba> extreme of a zillion little pieces but instead break it in a
> ba> few pieces to cover about 90% of the use(rs). More pieces
> ba> means more things can go wrong.... [just my opinion]
>
>
> Do you think splitting it to small packages will be a big problem? I
> realize it takes additional time, but considering pros and cons I
> think it is better to do so. If you have any ideas that points to a
> bad scenario, please let me know more specific.
I'm only a tex user, not tex gourou.
For your question I think all depends what's you mean «small packages». I
think for the user it's important to have something easy to install (This
is the tex distribution purpose...).
For example if a user need to install 10 ports to make
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
Hello world
\end{document}
to compile with latex....it's hopeless.
I remenber sometime ago there are beamer packages as a ports. Well that's
not a big problem because not every tex user use beamer. But now beamer is
part of teTeX. It's better because many user don't known baemer event
exist.
Well...IMHO «we» need a big ports ports for 99% users...
Regards.
--
Albert SHIH
Observatoire de Paris Meudon
SIO batiment 15
Heure local/Local time:
Lun 17 déc 2007 16:27:10 CET
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
