01.10.2012 13:42, Hiroki Sato пишет:
> I am considering to remove print/teTeX* (since I am the maintainer) and
> update the dependencies to use the modular texlive ports seamlessly.
Hiroki-san, this sounds like the best plan. Thank you!
I'll hold on the PR for now.
--
WBR, Boris Samorodov (bs
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 11:21:22AM +0200, Romain Tartière wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 01:14:27PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> > 30.09.2012 19:31, Romain Tartière пишет:
> > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:17:03AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >
> > >> I CCed both hrs and romain
Romain Tartière wrote
in <20120930153124.ga4...@blogreen.org>:
ro> Hi!
ro>
ro> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:17:03AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
ro> > My second concern was discussed when Dominic Fandrey called for testing
this
ro> > port: at least 2 people have been working on texlive with
Hi!
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 01:14:27PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> 30.09.2012 19:31, Romain Tartière пишет:
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:17:03AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>
> >> I CCed both hrs and romain so they can give their opinion and the status of
> >> their work.
> >
> > Yes,
30.09.2012 19:31, Romain Tartière пишет:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:17:03AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> I CCed both hrs and romain so they can give their opinion and the status of
>> their work.
>
> Yes, after 2 months away, I am back :-)
OK, guys, what is the best way to proceed:
1) e
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:17:03AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> My second concern was discussed when Dominic Fandrey called for testing this
> port: at least 2 people have been working on texlive with different approach:
> hrs and romain.
>
> In particular Romain and I discussed on merg
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 15:15:01 -0700
Kevin Oberman articulated:
> CDROMs are not getting bigger, but the size of disks just continue to
> increase.
However, DVD's can easily handle a paltry 1.4GB. All modern systems
come with DVD's so perhaps it is time to embrace progress and move
forward with our
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 05:22:36PM +0400, Борис Самородов wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm about to commit print/texlive ports (PR/171571). One of it's ports
> (print/texlive-texmf) has size approx. 1.4 Gb.
>
> What is the current policy upon huge ports? Should I restrict someting
> to not build at, say,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2012 17:48, "Eitan Adler" wrote:
>>
>> On 29 September 2012 09:22, Борис Самородов wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I'm about to commit print/texlive ports (PR/171571). One of it's ports
>> > (print/texlive-texmf) has size approx. 1.4 G
On 29 Sep 2012 17:48, "Eitan Adler" wrote:
>
> On 29 September 2012 09:22, Борис Самородов wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I'm about to commit print/texlive ports (PR/171571). One of it's ports
> > (print/texlive-texmf) has size approx. 1.4 Gb.
> >
> > What is the current policy upon huge ports? Shoul
On 29 September 2012 09:22, Борис Самородов wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm about to commit print/texlive ports (PR/171571). One of it's ports
> (print/texlive-texmf) has size approx. 1.4 Gb.
>
> What is the current policy upon huge ports? Should I restrict someting
> to not build at, say, pointyhat? Som
Hi All,
I'm about to commit print/texlive ports (PR/171571). One of it's ports
(print/texlive-texmf) has size approx. 1.4 Gb.
What is the current policy upon huge ports? Should I restrict someting
to not build at, say, pointyhat? Something else?
Thanks!
--
WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam)
FreeBSD Co
12 matches
Mail list logo
