1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> As you might guess it, having a modular layout can give dependencies |
4 |
> problems. I was thinking about adding some (new style) virtuals to |
5 |
> handle them : |
6 |
|
7 |
> - virtual/tex-base : programs that need only standard tex binaries |
8 |
> or libraires (like kpathsea) but do not need it to compile latex |
9 |
> files for example. There are a very very few of such packages and |
10 |
> are ok with the next virtual, so I dunno if that one is really |
11 |
> necessary, apart for reducing deps to the minimal set. |
12 |
|
13 |
> - virtual/latex-base : packages that need a (basic) latex, for |
14 |
> example to compile their documentation. This virtual will help |
15 |
> preventing from having circular dependencies between ebuilds (esp. |
16 |
> the meta ebuild and its dependencies) |
17 |
|
18 |
> - virtual/latex-full : a full latex distribution installation, what |
19 |
> other tex distributions like tetex provide. This one can use the |
20 |
> current old style virtual (virtual/tetex) instead of being a new |
21 |
> one, but the name is better imho. |
22 |
|
23 |
> So in the end, only latex-base is strictly required to merge this. |
24 |
> tex-base and latex-full have their improvements but can benefit from |
25 |
> discussion here. |
26 |
|
27 |
I would be strongly in favour of adding also the tex-base virtual [1]. |
28 |
|
29 |
Packages requiring plain TeX are now migrated to IUSE=tex, as |
30 |
suggested in bug #196745 [2], and it is not consistent if they must |
31 |
now depend on virtual/latex-base. |
32 |
|
33 |
Of course one could add explicit any-of-many dependencies for |
34 |
texlive-core or {te,p,cste}tex everywhere, but I think it is much |
35 |
better if this is handled in one place. |
36 |
|
37 |
Ulrich |
38 |
|
39 |
[1] <http://overlays.gentoo.org/dev/aballier/browser/texlive-overlay/virtual/tex-base> |
40 |
[2] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/196745#c4> |
41 |
-- |
42 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |