Alexis Ballier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I've had several success reports, and fixed the remaining (known) bugs > there. I was thinking that it might be time to integrate this to the > official tree, as a first shoot under package.mask.
You would make so many people happy, if one has a look at the size of the CC field on the bug. > As you might guess it, having a modular layout can give dependencies > problems. I was thinking about adding some (new style) virtuals to > handle them : > - virtual/tex-base : programs that need only standard tex binaries or > libraires (like kpathsea) but do not need it to compile latex files > for example. There are a very very few of such packages and are ok > with the next virtual, so I dunno if that one is really necessary, > apart for reducing deps to the minimal set. I am against it, as it will make maintenance a bit harder. > - virtual/latex-base : packages that need a (basic) latex, for example > to compile their documentation. This virtual will help preventing from > having circular dependencies between ebuilds (esp. the meta ebuild and > its dependencies) > - virtual/latex-full : a full latex distribution installation, what > other tex distributions like tetex provide. This one can use the > current old style virtual (virtual/tetex) instead of being a new one, > but the name is better imho. Full ack with those two. It is a pain in the ass to maintain 1000s of ebuilds in the tree for every single LaTeX package that TeXLive provides so I am all in favour of a install all. > Something that annoys me is the license : there is [3], [4] and [5], > so GPL-2 might probably be fine, but I'm definitely not a lawyer... You can add several licenses to LICENSE. And a lot of packages are LPPL, so you really need to adjust it. There has been a discussion on the TeXLive about the licenses [1]. > Now a question to arch teams : Should I keyword this for systems I've > tested it or just add without keywords and let you do another layer of > checks ? I've been using it on ~x86 (and hardenend but mpost had > problems), ~amd64 and ~ppc64 (this one has some missing deps, but > don't worry I'll poke you as soon as I'll have done extra checks ;) ). I am all for new keywording as it is a major step forward from teTeX. > As a side note, I'll have to send 1.3k+ files to distfiles-local as > upstream does not provide versionned names of the source files, for a > total of ~700-800M. Since this is huge, I hope infra has no particular > objection to it. Talk to them directly. V-Li [1] <URL:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.live/14569> -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project <URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode <URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
