Hi Kili, On 27/06/07, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a quick note FYI: I'm still aware of your work, but unfortunately I've all that Haskell ports in my queue and to get this shit finished, I just need teTeX, and I don't have enought build/test machines to work in parallel. But simon just said that he'll have a look at the texlive ports, so don't despair ;)
Ofcourse. I respect that you are busy.
Only one point I remember from what I've seen (in some very early of your submissions): the base package contains some binaries we've already in ports. Mainly some postscript conversion tools, but there may be more. Not important for development, but it should be checked and cleaned up to get more people involved when your port becomes "enough shape".
I could omit these binaries and add existing stuff as RUN_DEPENDS? Is that what you mean? I know texi2html conflicts, so i told configure not to build it.
Also, I'd prefer to try to keep the old name (tetex) and treat it as an update for tetex, if possible (i.e. if there're similar subpackages). Else you've to mark tetex and texlive as conflicting and run into serious problems wrt ports depending on tetex.
Ah. I see what your saying, but it feels wrong. It would be useful if ports could say: You need EITHER tetex OR texlive as a dep, but this would be so rarely used that it doesnt seem worth implementing. What problems will be encounter? Kpathse should be in the same path as teTeX. This is the main dependancy in most cases? I would feel like I am lying to the user if I said it were teTeX. TeXLive is so much more. What do other people think? -- Best Regards Edd --------------------------------------------------- http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
