TexLive 2009 plans Re: [MacPorts] #16492: UPDATE: TexLive 2007 to newer version
Dan Ports
dports at ambulatoryclam.net
Wed Feb 17 15:03:38 PST 2010
I posted the following comments about the work I'm doing on updating
the texlive ports to v2009 in a ticket, but since they are some
fairly large changes, I thought I'd send them to -dev too. (Apologies
for the spam to anyone who already received it.)
Any comments are appreciated.
Dan
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:49:25PM -0000, MacPorts wrote:
> #16492: UPDATE: TexLive 2007 to newer version
> ---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
> Reporter: luis.beca@??? | Owner: milosh@???
> Type: update | Status: new
> Priority: Normal | Milestone:
> Component: ports | Version:
> Keywords: | Port: texlive
> ---------------------------------+------------------------------------------
>
> Comment(by dports@???):
>
> Let me say a few words about what I'm working on with the texlive port so
> that people know what's going on -- looks like there's been a lot of
> interest in a more recent TeXLive lately.
>
> For background, texlive is a large and lumbering monstrosity. It includes
> a giant pile of source code (complete with all of its dependent
> libraries), an even more giant pile of TeX packages, and its own package
> manager. I believe texlive 2009 is divided into over 3000 packages, which
> are grouped into about 80 "collections", and further grouped into 10
> "schemes".
>
> The version currently in MacPorts is 2007, which IIRC predates TexLive's
> package management system. So there's a texlive_base port that installs
> the binaries, a texlive_texmf-full and a texlive_texmf-minimal that
> install some or all of the tex files, s texlive_texmf-docs port, and a
> texlive metaport.
>
> This organization doesn't really work for TL 2009, because there's no
> "minimal" texmf tree anymore and it's not really clear exactly what we'd
> want to put in a "minimal" install anyway. And I would really rather not
> support only a full install of texlive, because that's about a gig of
> distfiles and probably over 2GB installed. Instead, I'd like to provide
> finer granularity so that users can choose what they want installed.
>
> So my plan is to create the following ports:
> * texlive-common, which contains support scripts and files required for
> building and installing the others (e.g. texmf.cnf)
> * texlive-bin, which contains everything built from source (not too
> different from today's texlive_base)
> * one port per texlive collection, e.g. texlive-basic, texlive-latex-
> recommended, texlive-lang-african
>
> I'm leaning toward one port per collection because I think this is the
> only option with a decent granularity and a reasonable number of ports. It
> would wind up creating 80-90 ports, which is a lot, but not totally
> unreasonable to me. (Note that 30 of these are language-specific packages
> for 30 languages, and another 24 are documentation in different
> languages.) This is basically the approach that Debian takes.
>
> The other alternatives are one port per package, which would be great in
> that you could install exactly the packages you need, but require 3000+
> ports, which would be a nightmare. One port per scheme (there are 10 of
> them) would also be a decent option, except that the schemes overlap, so
> the ports would conflict. I think one port per collection is the way to
> go.
>
> I've done a lot of the work necessary for this, including getting the
> binaries to build and the giant distfile carved up into more manageable
> collections. I can provide more details if anyone is interested, and I
> hope to have a patch soon once I get it into reasonably usable shape.
>
> This has been even more of a painful mess than I expected it to be!
>
> --
> Ticket URL: <http://trac.macports.org/ticket/16492#comment:47>
> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
> Ports system for Mac OS
>
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
More information about the macports-dev
mailing list