On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 05:07:47PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote:
> Am I going to assume that the size of the package is acceptable and
> continue with a texlive_texmf-full package, which will be an "all the
> rest" kind of affair?
I'm fine with the size. 316 MB compared to the teTeX thing (217 MB)
isn't too bad.
However some notes (on texmf-minimal, I'll look on the base stuff
later):
- Don't just move away the stuff from WRKDIST to PREFIX/share, copy it
over, i.e. something like
umask 022 && cp -r ${WRKDIST}/texmf* ${PREFIX}/share
- Moving the manpages during do-install and then removing them using a
script is silly. Just omit this and @comment the bogus manpages in the
PLIST. That means, go with the above mentioned command line for
do-install, then make update-plist (should be done anyway, since
there appear to be some more files missing from your PLIST), then
@comment share/texmf/doc/man/man1 and also change all the @man
tags to @comment.
- For post-install, I've to see the texmf-full thing first. This may be
a case for @exec/@unexec.
> I can't really carry on if the minimal package is subject to change.
That complicated? I don't know (yet) what the implications of moving
stuff around between texmf-minimal and texmf-full, but you should
really work towards *one* port with subpackages, e.g.:
texmf-main: the minimal stuff
texmf-full (or texmf-addons, or whatever): all the other files,
should RUN_DEPENDS on texmf-main
As noted, files that need to be tweaked when adding/deleting
texmf-full (such as fmtutil.cnf and updmap.cfg, or just ls-R) may
be dealt with using @exec/@unexec tags in the PLIST.
Ciao,
Kili
