On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 02:10:12PM +0100, Romain Tartière wrote:
> Hi!
>
> There have been numerous mails about adding ports for TeXLive to FreeBSD
> [1,2,3,4], unfortunately, nothing is available so far.
>
>
> Since I really think TeXLive can be a plus for FreeBSD, and because I
> use TeXLive on another system, I started another effort to bring it to
> the ports tree. In order to avoid loosing everything if I run out of
> time, I created a Google code project for working:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/freebsd-texlive/
>
Nice!
>
> Some of the distfiles are sort of meta-packages, this helps grouping
> [5, Categories]. Here are some ports organisation possibilities:
>
> 1. One port per Scheme (10 ports)
> + very few ports;
> - low granularity;
> - each port conflict with others.
>
> 2. One port per Collection (84 ports) + One meta-port per Scheme (10
> Meta-ports)
> + no conflict (AFAIK);
> - low granularity.
>
> 3. One port per Package, grouping related packages (e.g. foo,
> foo.source and foo.doc) (/[0-9]{4}/ ports) + meta-port for
> Collections (84 meta-ports) + meta-port for Scheme (10 meta-ports)
> + high granularity;
> + no conflict;
> - many ports.
>
> 4. Same as #3 without grouping packages
> + highest granularity;
> - many many ports.
>
>
> I am in favor of #3 since it allows TeXLive users to install a basic set
> that fit their needs (a beginner will install the full scheme
> meta-package and have everything, another will choose a minimal scheme,
> another will directory install the collections he wants, it is possible
> to install a particular package without installing loads of other
> packages (say you have a document that use svninfo for example and you
> don't have / want collection-latexextra)).
>
> I would however be pleased to read what teTeX/TeXLive [future] users
> think about all this.
>
As a current teTeX and Xorg user, I like your choice #3.
As a little note, you can consider sub-splitting Package port into 'meat' part
(always installed), documentation, examples, etc. (controlled by
NOPORTDOCS, NOPORTEXAMPLES, etc. variables set by the end user).
So, it is still one FreeBSD port, but user can choose whether to install
doc and so on, or not.
Just FYI, debian seems to have chosen something between #1 and #2:
~> grep ^texlive allpackages | wc
93 775 7736
Just my 0.02$,
Alexey.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
