vpnc connects, but does not work
I have installed vpnc to connect to an employer's Cisco VPN system, and it seems to make the connection, but after connecting I can't ping the gateway nor anything beyond it. The symptom seems to resemble what is described in the Routing section of http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~flemej/fbsd-cisco-vpn.pdf, but since that is using a completely different setup on the FreeBSD side I have no idea whether the remedy described there is applicable (nor, if it is, how to determine the addresses to use in this case). Does this look at all familiar to anyone? I didn't find anything that seemed applicable in recent ports@ or questions@ archives. (I have XX'd out potentially-sensitive material in the following.) # /usr/local/sbin/vpnc Enter password for x...@xxx.xxx.com: Connect Banner: | *** XXX, Inc. Authorized Use Only *** add host YYY.YYY.127.228: gateway 192.168.200.254 add net ZZZ.ZZZ.0.0: gateway ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 add net ZZZ.ZZZ.57.128: gateway ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 add net ZZZ.ZZZ.57.133: gateway ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 VPNC started in background (pid: 24776)... The addresses in those last two "add net" lines seem to be the nameservers: $ cat /etc/resolv.conf #...@vpnc_generated@ -- this file is generated by vpnc # and will be overwritten by vpnc # as long as the above mark is intact nameserver ZZZ.ZZZ.57.128 nameserver ZZZ.ZZZ.57.133 search XXX.com which leads me to wonder whether they really ought to be "add host" -- for that matter it's not clear they're needed at all since they should be covered by the "add net ZZZ.ZZZ.0.0" -- but I guess that may not make much difference when I can't even ping my own gateway (tun0) address :( $ ping ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 PING ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 (ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42): 56 data bytes ^C --- ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss $ ping ZZZ.ZZZ.57.128 PING ZZZ.ZZZ.57.128 (ZZZ.ZZZ.57.128): 56 data bytes ^C --- ZZZ.ZZZ.57.128 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss $ ping ZZZ.ZZZ.57.133 PING ZZZ.ZZZ.57.133 (ZZZ.ZZZ.57.133): 56 data bytes ^C --- ZZZ.ZZZ.57.133 ping statistics --- 27 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss $ ifconfig -a xl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 options=9 inet6 fe80::2b0:d0ff:fe28:ad4f%xl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 192.168.200.61 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.200.255 ether 00:b0:d0:28:ad:4f media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP) status: active plip0: flags=108810 mtu 1500 lo0: flags=8049 mtu 16384 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00 tun0: flags=8051 mtu 1412 inet6 fe80::2b0:d0ff:fe28:ad4f%tun0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4 inet ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 --> ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 netmask 0x Opened by PID 24635 Meanwhile I _can_ ping YYY.YYY.127.228, which I guess is the concentrator's public IP address: $ ping YYY.YYY.127.228 PING YYY.YYY.127.228 (YYY.YYY.127.228): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from YYY.YYY.127.228: icmp_seq=0 ttl=116 time=53.226 ms 64 bytes from YYY.YYY.127.228: icmp_seq=1 ttl=116 time=52.982 ms 64 bytes from YYY.YYY.127.228: icmp_seq=2 ttl=116 time=53.130 ms ^C --- YYY.YYY.127.228 ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 packets received, 0% packet loss round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 52.982/53.113/53.226/0.100 ms $ netstat -r -n Routing tables Internet: DestinationGatewayFlagsRefs Use Netif Expire default192.168.200.254UGS 0 2209723xl0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 02lo0 ZZZ.ZZZZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 UGS 00 tun0 ZZZ.ZZZ.57.128/32 ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 UGS 0 19 tun0 ZZZ.ZZZ.57.133/32 ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 UGS 0 18 tun0 ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 UH 59 20 tun0 YYY.YYY.127/27 ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 UGS 00 tun0 YYY.YYY.127.96/27 ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 UGS 00 tun0 YYY.YYY.127.224/27 ZZZ.ZZZ.233.42 UGS 00 tun0 YYY.YYY.127.228192.168.200.254UGHS0 106xl0 192.168.200link#1 UC 00xl0 192.168.200.25400:09:5b:a1:c8:9e UHLW3 4318078xl0 1148 192.168.200.255ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff UHLWb 13xl0 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
TeXLive
Hi!
There have been numerous mails about adding ports for TeXLive to FreeBSD
[1,2,3,4], unfortunately, nothing is available so far.
Since I really think TeXLive can be a plus for FreeBSD, and because I
use TeXLive on another system, I started another effort to bring it to
the ports tree. In order to avoid loosing everything if I run out of
time, I created a Google code project for working:
http://code.google.com/p/freebsd-texlive/
Currently, I have all TeXLive binaries compiling from source
(installation is still not perfect though) and quite a precise idea of
how all TeXLive distfiles are organised and how to build FreeBSD ports
from the metadata they enclose (refer to the project's wiki for details,
I am trying to dump all there [5]).
I am now facing the problem of the organisation of the ports to create.
The freebsd-ports archives reveal some interesting points:
1. TeXLive should be very modular
It is then possible to run a version of XeTeX more recent then
the one provided with TeXLive (i.e. compile TeXLive
--without-xetex and depend on a port print/xetex-devel).
2. TeXLive should be provided as 3-4 packages just like teTeX
It is the way teTeX fits in the FreeBSD ports tree, and TeXLive
is then kind-of a drop-in replacement of teTeX.
3. TeXLive should be provided as ~10 packages
TeXLive is too big to be included as just 3-4 packages, but
splitting everything will create 100's of ports and this will be
a mess. So group all in say 10 ports and it will be a good
compromise.
4. TeXLive should be provided as many many small packages
If I need a package, I don't want to install a set of thousands
of packages to have it: I just want it to be available and
install it.
If we consider that ports are build from source, it important to know
that TeXLive provide a single tarball for all applications binaries
source code. All the rest (macros, fonts, etc.) is provided as a lot of
small tarball. As a consequence, I see #1 as « Split the applications
», and #2, #3 and #4 as « Split the rest ». But maybe the question is
more about « Split both ».
For now, I do not intend to make the port that install all binaries a
meta-port (so no #1). It is quite huge and complex, include modified
version of libraries that are statically linked to the binaries, ...
well, I don't want to spend time on this right now (maybe in the future
but unsure — However, contributions are welcomed).
Splitting the rest (#2, #3, #4) is another problem: I am convinced that
is is important to have very low granularity for experienced users: as
an unexperienced TeX user, I would need this, so I guess that anybody
with more skills than I have will think the same.
But having a lot of ports does not necessarily leads to complexity to
beginners, since we can provide meta-ports (just like Xorg).
The big picture: TeXLive provide 5229 packages ...
Well... We can remove more than 1200 packages of binaries for various
platforms, and there is still distfiles related to the TeXLive
installation system that are not needed on FreeBSD.
So basically, we have 4000 distfiles to arrange in ports.
Some of the distfiles are sort of meta-packages, this helps grouping
[5, Categories]. Here are some ports organisation possibilities:
1. One port per Scheme (10 ports)
+ very few ports;
- low granularity;
- each port conflict with others.
2. One port per Collection (84 ports) + One meta-port per Scheme (10
Meta-ports)
+ no conflict (AFAIK);
- low granularity.
3. One port per Package, grouping related packages (e.g. foo,
foo.source and foo.doc) (/[0-9]{4}/ ports) + meta-port for
Collections (84 meta-ports) + meta-port for Scheme (10 meta-ports)
+ high granularity;
+ no conflict;
- many ports.
4. Same as #3 without grouping packages
+ highest granularity;
- many many ports.
I am in favor of #3 since it allows TeXLive users to install a basic set
that fit their needs (a beginner will install the full scheme
meta-package and have everything, another will choose a minimal scheme,
another will directory install the collections he wants, it is possible
to install a particular package without installing loads of other
packages (say you have a document that use svninfo for example and you
don't have / want collection-latexextra)).
I would however be pleased to read what teTeX/TeXLive [future] users
think about all this.
With kind regards,
Romain
References:
1. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-July/042729.html
2. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-December/045860.html
3.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2007-October/161492.html
4.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-advocacy/2003-November/000705.html
5. http://code.google.com/p/freebsd-texlive/wiki/source
--
Romain Tartière http://romain.blogreen.org/
pgp: 8DAB A12
Re: cvs commit: ports/archivers/xmill Makefile distinfo pkg-descr ports/archivers/xmill/files patch-XMill+BZlib.cpp patch-makefile patch-src::Main.cpp patch-src::ZLib.cpp
Hi, The build which triggered this email is done under tinderbox-2.4.3, on 7-STABLE on amd64, with tinderd_flags="-nullfs -plistcheck -onceonly" and ccache support, with the "official" up-to-date Ports Tree, with the following vars set: NOPORTDOCS=yes, NOPORTEXAMPLES=yes, NOPORTDATA=yes, FORCE_PACKAGE=yes. Excerpt from http://T64.TecNik93.com/logs/7-STABLE-FTP/xmill-0.8.log : building xmill-0.8 in directory /var/tinderbox/7-STABLE-FTP maintained by: po...@freebsd.org building for: 7.1-PRERELEASE amd64 port directory: /usr/ports/archivers/xmill Makefile ident: $FreeBSD: ports/archivers/xmill/Makefile,v 1.13 2008/12/24 13:09:34 danfe Exp $ prefixes: LOCALBASE=usr/local X11BASE=usr/local NO* env vars: NOPORTDOCS=yes NOPORTEXAMPLES=yes NOPORTDATA=yes build started at Wed Dec 24 13:18:10 UTC 2008 ... => Attempting to fetch from http://nchc.dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/xmill/. xmill-0.8.zip 3039 kB 54 kBps => MD5 Checksum OK for xmill-0.8.zip. => SHA256 Checksum OK for xmill-0.8.zip. add_pkg unzip-5.52_5.tbz adding dependencies pkg_add unzip-5.52_5.tbz ===> Extracting for xmill-0.8 => MD5 Checksum OK for xmill-0.8.zip. => SHA256 Checksum OK for xmill-0.8.zip. ===> xmill-0.8 depends on executable: unzip - found Deleting unzip-5.52_5 add_pkg ===> Patching for xmill-0.8 ===> Converting DOS text file to UNIX text file: ===> Applying FreeBSD patches for xmill-0.8 add_pkg unzip-5.52_5.tbz adding dependencies pkg_add unzip-5.52_5.tbz ===> Configuring for xmill-0.8 ===> Building for xmill-0.8 c++ -o ./tmp/realmain.o -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -c -w -DXMILL -IXMill -Ippmdi ./XMill/realmain.cpp c++ -o ./tmp/Options.o -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -c -w -DXMILL -IXMill -Ippmdi ./XMill/Options.cpp c++ -o ./tmp/CompressMan.o -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -c -w -DXMILL -IXMill -Ippmdi ./XMill/CompressMan.cpp ./XMill/CompressMan.cpp: In member function 'void BothCompressMan::DebugPrint()': ./XMill/CompressMan.cpp:426: error: cast from 'UserCompressorFactory*' to 'unsigned int' loses precision *** Error code 1 Stop in /work/a/ports/archivers/xmill/work/xmill. *** Error code 1 Stop in /a/ports/archivers/xmill. build of /usr/ports/archivers/xmill ended at Wed Dec 24 13:19:10 UTC 2008 A description of the testing process can be found here: http://T32.TecNik93.com/FreeBSD/QA-Tindy/ Thanks for your work on making FreeBSD better, -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> ite...@freebsd.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: TeXLive
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 02:10:12PM +0100, Romain Tartière wrote:
> Hi!
>
> There have been numerous mails about adding ports for TeXLive to FreeBSD
> [1,2,3,4], unfortunately, nothing is available so far.
>
>
> Since I really think TeXLive can be a plus for FreeBSD, and because I
> use TeXLive on another system, I started another effort to bring it to
> the ports tree. In order to avoid loosing everything if I run out of
> time, I created a Google code project for working:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/freebsd-texlive/
>
Nice!
>
> Some of the distfiles are sort of meta-packages, this helps grouping
> [5, Categories]. Here are some ports organisation possibilities:
>
> 1. One port per Scheme (10 ports)
>+ very few ports;
>- low granularity;
>- each port conflict with others.
>
> 2. One port per Collection (84 ports) + One meta-port per Scheme (10
> Meta-ports)
>+ no conflict (AFAIK);
>- low granularity.
>
> 3. One port per Package, grouping related packages (e.g. foo,
> foo.source and foo.doc) (/[0-9]{4}/ ports) + meta-port for
> Collections (84 meta-ports) + meta-port for Scheme (10 meta-ports)
>+ high granularity;
>+ no conflict;
>- many ports.
>
> 4. Same as #3 without grouping packages
>+ highest granularity;
>- many many ports.
>
>
> I am in favor of #3 since it allows TeXLive users to install a basic set
> that fit their needs (a beginner will install the full scheme
> meta-package and have everything, another will choose a minimal scheme,
> another will directory install the collections he wants, it is possible
> to install a particular package without installing loads of other
> packages (say you have a document that use svninfo for example and you
> don't have / want collection-latexextra)).
>
> I would however be pleased to read what teTeX/TeXLive [future] users
> think about all this.
>
As a current teTeX and Xorg user, I like your choice #3.
As a little note, you can consider sub-splitting Package port into 'meat' part
(always installed), documentation, examples, etc. (controlled by
NOPORTDOCS, NOPORTEXAMPLES, etc. variables set by the end user).
So, it is still one FreeBSD port, but user can choose whether to install
doc and so on, or not.
Just FYI, debian seems to have chosen something between #1 and #2:
~> grep ^texlive allpackages | wc
93 7757736
Just my 0.02$,
Alexey.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: TeXLive
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 03:21:01PM +0100, Alexey Shuvaev wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 02:10:12PM +0100, Romain Tartière wrote:
> > 3. One port per Package, grouping related packages (e.g. foo,
> > foo.source and foo.doc) (/[0-9]{4}/ ports) + meta-port for
> > Collections (84 meta-ports) + meta-port for Scheme (10 meta-ports)
> >+ high granularity;
> >+ no conflict;
> >- many ports.
> As a current teTeX and Xorg user, I like your choice #3.
> As a little note, you can consider sub-splitting Package port into 'meat' part
> (always installed), documentation, examples, etc. (controlled by
> NOPORTDOCS, NOPORTEXAMPLES, etc. variables set by the end user).
> So, it is still one FreeBSD port, but user can choose whether to install
> doc and so on, or not.
Yup! This is already planned this way in bsd.texlive.mk [1].
> Just FYI, debian seems to have chosen something between #1 and #2:
> ~> grep ^texlive allpackages | wc
> 93 7757736
I will have a look at it!
Thanks!
Romain
References:
1.
http://code.google.com/p/freebsd-texlive/source/browse/trunk/print/texlive/bsd.texlive.mk
--
Romain Tartière http://romain.blogreen.org/
pgp: 8DAB A124 0DA4 7024 F82A E748 D8E9 A33F FF56 FF43 (ID: 0xFF56FF43)
(plain text =non-HTML= PGP/GPG encrypted/signed e-mail much appreciated)
pgpBAZlugWjPm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: TeXLive
Romain Tartière wrote in <20081224131012.ga8...@blogreen.org>: ro> Hi! ro> ro> There have been numerous mails about adding ports for TeXLive to FreeBSD ro> [1,2,3,4], unfortunately, nothing is available so far. ro> ro> ro> Since I really think TeXLive can be a plus for FreeBSD, and because I ro> use TeXLive on another system, I started another effort to bring it to ro> the ports tree. In order to avoid loosing everything if I run out of ro> time, I created a Google code project for working: ro> ro> http://code.google.com/p/freebsd-texlive/ ro> ro> ro> Currently, I have all TeXLive binaries compiling from source ro> (installation is still not perfect though) and quite a precise idea of ro> how all TeXLive distfiles are organised and how to build FreeBSD ports ro> from the metadata they enclose (refer to the project's wiki for details, ro> I am trying to dump all there [5]). ro> ro> ro> I am now facing the problem of the organisation of the ports to create. ro> The freebsd-ports archives reveal some interesting points: I am the one who were saying the porting was going, and sorry for being out of touch with public lists, but the points include not only how to import them to our ports tree but also how to integrate them with the large number of ports depending TeX. The reasons why I could not import them so far are: 1) some remaining issues could not be solved until the last month and 2) I need to wait for the recent releases being rolled out (much-delayed, as you know). I have three sort of experimental ports of texlive now; the first is a large one, the second is completely-modularized one, and the last is a combination of modularized binaries and macro part in a few ports with scripts to interface CTAN between the installed macros. Considering migration from teTeX, I am planning to commit a part of 1) just after 7.1R is rolled out, then break them, and finally form them into 3). This integration involves many other ports which depend on TeX, and probably the new category named "tex". Also, we are using TeX in our documentation infrastructure, so updating the related ports are very sensitive. I think discussion of the organization in the ports tree would be a good thing, but please also consider this factor; for example, if we are not able to make JadeTeX work as before we need to solve the issue first, and we have solve the current situation that we have print/tex independent from the old teTeX, which often confuses the users. Anyway, I think major technical issues (functionality, compatibility, and so on) are solved now while a large change is needed to TeX-related ports in the current ports tree. And I think unless we are sure that these points and long-standing complaints which exist from the teTeX era can be solved, it should not be imported. Again, please accept my sincere apologies for your inconvenience of missing TeXLive in FreeBSD for a long time. I do not want to make others do duplicated work and conflict with other efforts, but at the same time I have no right to bothering your effort. This is my comment at this moment as one of people who are involved. -- | Hiroki SATO pgpQSVTciNzsx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: TeXLive
On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 12:32:46AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote: > Romain Tartière wrote > in <20081224131012.ga8...@blogreen.org>: > > ro> There have been numerous mails about adding ports for TeXLive to FreeBSD > ro> [1,2,3,4], unfortunately, nothing is available so far. > > I am the one who were saying the porting was going, and sorry for > being out of touch with public lists, but the points include not only > how to import them to our ports tree but also how to integrate them > with the large number of ports depending TeX. Well, I don't think of importing TeXLive into the FreeBSD ports tree as a replacement of teTeX (sorry if that was unclear by what I meant by "drop-in replacement"). I was just thinking about having both in the ports tree, leaving existing dependencies untouched so that ports that used to depend on teTeX still depend on it... TeXLive would only be installed if the user explicitly want TeXLive instead of teTeX. > The reasons why I could not import them so far are: 1) some remaining > issues could not be solved until the last month and 2) I need to wait > for the recent releases being rolled out (much-delayed, as you know). Err... Well in fact I am not a *TeX* addict... Just an user: I have a document I started to typeset on Windows with TeXLive and it don't compile on FreeBSD's teTeX (too old macros I guess)... I just want to continue this document. Porting TeXLive is a need, not a goal :-) SO no, I was not aware that another release was imminent. > I have three sort of experimental ports of texlive now; the first is > a large one, the second is completely-modularized one, and the last > is a combination of modularized binaries and macro part in a few > ports with scripts to interface CTAN between the installed macros. > Considering migration from teTeX, I am planning to commit a part of > 1) just after 7.1R is rolled out, then break them, and finally form > them into 3). This sounds cool! > This integration involves many other ports which depend on TeX, and > probably the new category named "tex". Also, we are using TeX in our > documentation infrastructure, so updating the related ports are very > sensitive. I think discussion of the organization in the ports tree > would be a good thing, but please also consider this factor; for > example, if we are not able to make JadeTeX work as before we need to > solve the issue first, and we have solve the current situation that > we have print/tex independent from the old teTeX, which often > confuses the users. Anyway, I think major technical issues > (functionality, compatibility, and so on) are solved now while a > large change is needed to TeX-related ports in the current ports > tree. And I think unless we are sure that these points and > long-standing complaints which exist from the teTeX era can be > solved, it should not be imported. As I just explained, maybe teTeX and TeXLive can co-exist for a while? > Again, please accept my sincere apologies for your inconvenience of > missing TeXLive in FreeBSD for a long time. I do not want to make > others do duplicated work and conflict with other efforts, but at the > same time I have no right to bothering your effort. This is my > comment at this moment as one of people who are involved. Maybe having the TeXLive work available publicly may help people who want TeXLive on FreeBSD to merge it into their ports-tree, give more visibility to the porting effort, then contributions may arrive... It's the way we try to handle the BSD# Project [1] that aims to update all Mono related stuff for FreeBSD. Individuals who are looking for bleeding-edge .NET support in FreeBSD can access a ports tree that will make them happy, even if they now it might be broken. Kind regards, Romain References: 1. http://code.google.com/p/bsd-sharp/ -- Romain Tartière http://romain.blogreen.org/ pgp: 8DAB A124 0DA4 7024 F82A E748 D8E9 A33F FF56 FF43 (ID: 0xFF56FF43) (plain text =non-HTML= PGP/GPG encrypted/signed e-mail much appreciated) pgpkavoRc3RRJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: proposal: add --disable-tests to www/firefox3 port
* Eitan Adler (eitanadlerl...@gmail.com) wrote: I'd suggest -+.if defined(WITHOUT_DEBUG) ++.if !defined(WITH_DEBUG) DEBUG knob is assumed to defauly to false, this WITH_DEBUG is checked everywhere. See `grep -R _DEBUG /usr/ports/Mk` -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amd...@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amd...@jabber.ruhttp://www.amdmi3.ru ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: TeXLive
Romain Tartière wrote: > Well, I don't think of importing TeXLive into the FreeBSD ports tree as > a replacement of teTeX (sorry if that was unclear by what I meant by > "drop-in replacement"). I was just thinking about having both in the > ports tree, leaving existing dependencies untouched so that ports that > used to depend on teTeX still depend on it... TeXLive would only be > installed if the user explicitly want TeXLive instead of teTeX. I concur with that, as a TeX user since many years. For me teTeX is already overbloated as far as possible, particularly when some unconscious maintainer adds dependencies like cm-super which are perfectly non necessary, please don't impose on us abominations like TeXLive, leave that optional. -- Michel TALON ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: TeXLive
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hello Romain,
Thank you for the interesting analysis and for renewing the discussion
about TeXLive on FreeBSD.
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:10:12 +0100
Romain Tartière wrote:
[...]
> 1. TeXLive should be very modular
>
> It is then possible to run a version of XeTeX more recent
> then the one provided with TeXLive (i.e. compile TeXLive
> --without-xetex and depend on a port print/xetex-devel).
[...]
> If we consider that ports are build from source, it important to know
> that TeXLive provide a single tarball for all applications binaries
> source code. All the rest (macros, fonts, etc.) is provided as a lot
> of small tarball. As a consequence, I see #1 as « Split the
> applications », and #2, #3 and #4 as « Split the rest ». But maybe
> the question is more about « Split both ».
>
> For now, I do not intend to make the port that install all binaries a
> meta-port (so no #1). It is quite huge and complex, include modified
> version of libraries that are statically linked to the binaries, ...
> well, I don't want to spend time on this right now (maybe in the
> future but unsure — However, contributions are welcomed).
(I am the one who wrote #1.) What do you exactly mean by making a
meta-port for binaries? To make a port for every binary group provided
in their source tree? Sounds interesting, although what I meant there
was to use the internal TeXLive build options, such as --without-xetex,
so it's basically as simple as any of WITH_* options used in thousands
of existing ports.
> 3. One port per Package, grouping related packages (e.g. foo,
>foo.source and foo.doc) (/[0-9]{4}/ ports) + meta-port for
>Collections (84 meta-ports) + meta-port for Scheme (10 meta-ports)
> + high granularity;
> + no conflict;
> - many ports.
The main thing with TeXLive is that they make releases once a year. My
opinion is that if we just stick with their releases -- we don't need
any fine-grained work because such year-long cemented code somehow
contradicts the idea of FreeBSD's flexible ports. The idea is to
provide porters a flexible TeXLive base that can be enriched with many
TeX-related projects that are not included in current TeXLive
distribution (new and updated LaTeX packages, new versions of TeX
extensions, etc).
Once an initial TeXLive ports structure is committed, I'd like to see
many porters grabbing parts of their particular areas of interest (or
creating -devel ports) in order to provide users with versions newer
than those initially included.
It seems to me that your your proposal #3 supports this approach.
Best regards.
- --
Nikola Lečić = Никола Лечић
fingerprint : FEF3 66AF C90E EDC3 D878 7CDC 956D F4AB A377 1C9B
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
iJwEAQEDAAYFAklStwQACgkQ/MM/0rYIoZiFhQQApUO7pofWE19GskMfQ34GRWSQ
f5+AKlGvf2JKcMpB9Z0eq3aksIhxYFESAMwoEdWd+g0Z4gkyE9NdA4RCGflASahM
yaqnLsf8Ri2C0QcXbUdgufE49Yw1coGOkPT3TklB5NL2TVY+2PGJ/FfnxznU7pNY
CdeiNOZicsIRXfyUV/Q=
=lp2b
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: TeXLive
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 00:32:46 +0900 (JST) Hiroki Sato wrote: > I have three sort of experimental ports of texlive now; the first is > a large one, the second is completely-modularized one, and the last > is a combination of modularized binaries and macro part in a few > ports with scripts to interface CTAN between the installed macros. Is it possible to download your experimental versions for testing and suggestions before committing? Is it possible to make your work more visible -- as it is the case with many other ongoing FreeBSD projects -- to make a wiki page or something like that? It seems to me that TeXLive project is one of the most secretive FreeBSD projects. There is no need for that since there are many interested future users who might be helpful. :-) Anyway, thank you for your efforts and for the good news. Best wishes. - -- Nikola Lečić = Никола Лечић fingerprint : FEF3 66AF C90E EDC3 D878 7CDC 956D F4AB A377 1C9B -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) iJwEAQEDAAYFAklSuWIACgkQ/MM/0rYIoZjauQQAoclkZ1w//yh69RtTk1M2Lo3X 0l+KLqvxke+5v1crhwjiGpP6mHKbvZDLlseIY8XXfcNJgtj68Pt7t1FztckM70ZX ZFEv2cyFZHZgX85QX7uWiyTQZxbqohnJAIwzyVHYZmff5uDOPf5vk02lqbFxD0/E YfUY2vQUjyOXGDELve0= =Tuyp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
