On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 03:21:01PM +0100, Alexey Shuvaev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 02:10:12PM +0100, Romain Tartière wrote:
> > 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.
> 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.
Yup! This is already planned this way in bsd.texlive.mk [1].> Just FYI, debian seems to have chosen something between #1 and #2: > ~> grep ^texlive allpackages | wc > 93 775 7736 I will have a look at it! Thanks! Romain References: 1. http://code.google.com/p/freebsd-texlive/source/browse/trunk/print/texlive/bsd.texlive.mk -- Romain Tartière <rom...@blogreen.org> http://romain.blogreen.org/ pgp: 8DAB A124 0DA4 7024 F82A E748 D8E9 A33F FF56 FF43 (ID: 0xFF56FF43) (plain text =non-HTML= PGP/GPG encrypted/signed e-mail much appreciated)
pgpBAZlugWjPm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
