Hi, On 27/06/07, Matthias Kilian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 have identified the following ports which can replace binaries in texlive: print/detex print/dvi2tty print/ps2eps print/psutils So I will strip them from the texlive port, then add these first as RUN_DEPENDS and see if any should be bumped to BUILD_DEPENDS by attempting a build. Hopefully these ports are up to date and will work out of the box with texlive. print/prosper is already included in texlive, but I would recommend using the one in texlive. I don't really want to mix up macro packages. I have built lyx and evince (which are BUILD_DEPENDS of teTeX currently) against texlive. Evince has some issues regarding file->open (segs), but I doubt this is related to texlive, because as far as I know it just needs kpathse for dvi fonts? Evince displays pdf and dvi fine when built against texlive if you specify a file on the shell invocation: $ evince newfile2.dvi kpathsea: Running mktexpk --mfmode / --bdpi 600 --mag 1+0/600 --dpi 600 bchr8r mktexpk: Running gsftopk bchr8r 600 gsftopk(k) version 1.19.2/854 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [11] [12] [14] [15] [16] [17] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [159] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253] [254] [255] mktexpk: /var/tmp/texfonts/pk/modeless/bitstrea/charter/bchr8r.600pk: successful ly generated. This is good. texlive works as a drop in replacement for tetex where kpathse is required. Lyx works just fine with texlive, although |I'm not entirely convinced that it is a BUILD_DEPEND. I think it just calls external commands (RUN_DEPEND?). Here is what I propose for the future. Feel free to criticise: - Wait for Simon to get back to me on how his build went. - Make amendments to texlive port regarding DESCR, binaries already in ports and whatever else may arise. - If all is well commit texlive port - Add texlive FLAVORS for anything that *DEPENDS upon teTeX, but have the default flavor as teTeX still. - Encourage people to test texlive flavors and fix anything that becomes an issue. - When the time is right, set the default flavor to texlive. - Eventually phase out teTeX What do you think? -- Best Regards Edd --------------------------------------------------- http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
