Citando Jeremy Lavergne : > Your proposal sounds reasonable to me; that is a very similar approach to > what Ubuntu (debian) takes, and I think it works fine. > > I really wish texlive would do what miktex does and use a package manager for > each individual package. but oh well. Their collections make pretty good > sense as divisions.
texlive does provide its own package manager (tlmgr). Naturally, it is disabled by debian and friends. As it should by macports: we don't want things to install or update in $prefix without port knowing it. This proposal is perfectly reasonable. I am not totally convinced by debian's approach: it can be difficult to understand what to install to make a specific document compile (installing texlive-context to have metapost is (was) strange). It is far better than a port for each ctan package (nice granularity but I don't want to spend my whole life installing new ports when I want to use a specific symbol, draw a diagram...). I liked the full/minimal approach (I did not create it, just followed happily Edd Barrett's openBSD port) which made things simple both for the user and for the maintainer. Best of luck, Emmanuel _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
