[gentoo-dev] Re: TeXLive modular ebuilds ready(?) for the main portage tree

[Christian Faulhammer]

Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>:
> I've had several success reports, and fixed the remaining (known) bugs
> there. I was thinking that it might be time to integrate this to the
> official tree, as a first shoot under package.mask.

 You would make so many people happy, if one has a look at the size of
the CC field on the bug. 

> As you might guess it, having a modular layout can give dependencies
> problems. I was thinking about adding some (new style) virtuals to
> handle them :
> - virtual/tex-base : programs that need only standard tex binaries or
> libraires (like kpathsea) but do not need it to compile latex files
> for example. There are a very very few of such packages and are ok
> with the next virtual, so I dunno if that one is really necessary,
> apart for reducing deps to the minimal set.

 I am against it, as it will make maintenance a bit harder.

> - virtual/latex-base : packages that need a (basic) latex, for example
> to compile their documentation. This virtual will help preventing from
> having circular dependencies between ebuilds (esp. the meta ebuild and
> its dependencies)
> - virtual/latex-full : a full latex distribution installation, what
> other tex distributions like tetex provide. This one can use the
> current old style virtual (virtual/tetex) instead of being a new one,
> but the name is better imho.

 Full ack with those two.  It is a pain in the ass to maintain 1000s of
ebuilds in the tree for every single LaTeX package that TeXLive
provides so I am all in favour of a install all.
 
> Something that annoys me is the license : there is [3], [4] and [5],
> so GPL-2 might probably be fine, but I'm definitely not a lawyer...

 You can add several licenses to LICENSE.  And a lot of packages are
LPPL, so you really need to adjust it.  There has been a discussion on
the TeXLive about the licenses [1].

> Now a question to arch teams : Should I keyword this for systems I've
> tested it or just add without keywords and let you do another layer of
> checks ? I've been using it on ~x86 (and hardenend but mpost had
> problems), ~amd64 and ~ppc64 (this one has some missing deps, but
> don't worry I'll poke you as soon as I'll have done extra checks ;) ).

 I am all for new keywording as it is a major step forward from teTeX.
 
> As a side note, I'll have to send 1.3k+ files to distfiles-local as
> upstream does not provide versionned names of the source files, for a
> total of ~700-800M. Since this is huge, I hope infra has no particular
> objection to it.

 Talk to them directly.

V-Li

[1] <URL:http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.live/14569>

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>