> > >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?
>
> latex is latex for teTeX and TeXlive, right? That's the same thing
> in ${LOCALBASE}/bin for both ports. No we've countless ports that
> depend on teTeX, for whatever reason. If you want to keep teTeX and
> TeXlive separate, (and mark them as @conflict), you've to take care
> of every other port that currently depends on teTeX, and change it
> so it can use either teTeX or TeXlive.
>
> It's not impossible, see the Java ports for an example, but it
> implies many changes to ensure the ports tree don't break.
>
> > I would feel like I am lying to the user if I said it were teTeX.
> > TeXLive is so much more.
>
> It's just a name. You can still give credit/mention the big change
> in COMMENTs and DESCRs. Renaming can be done later.
No, I think texlive should be a new port, not an update to tetex, because
that's what it is, a new port... It also won't break anything that way.
We can adjust dependencies much later, when texlive has been sufficiently
tested.
