[98693] trunk/dports/tex/kde4-kile/Portfile
Nicolas Pavillon
nicos at macports.org
Sat Oct 13 04:07:16 PDT 2012
It depends on how the exception is understood. As the texlive distribution on Mac comes with its own distribution of ghostcript and ImageMagick, I considered that the exception was applied to the whole package, and not only to the pure tex binaries.
However, after checking, I realised that the binaries for ghostscript and ImageMagick are installed in /usr/local/bin and not in /usr/texbin as the tex executables, so that they are in a path which should be avoided from the start, contrarily to what I thought. I thus reverted it in r98704.
Thanks for the remark.
On Oct 13, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2012, at 02:42, nicos at macports.org wrote:
>
>> Revision: 98693
>> http://trac.macports.org//changeset/98693
>> Author: nicos at macports.org
>> Date: 2012-10-13 00:42:05 -0700 (Sat, 13 Oct 2012)
>> Log Message:
>> -----------
>> kde4-kile: passing tex dependencies to binary instead of ports
>>
>> Modified Paths:
>> --------------
>> trunk/dports/tex/kde4-kile/Portfile
>>
>> Modified: trunk/dports/tex/kde4-kile/Portfile
>> ===================================================================
>> --- trunk/dports/tex/kde4-kile/Portfile 2012-10-13 05:00:05 UTC (rev 98692)
>> +++ trunk/dports/tex/kde4-kile/Portfile 2012-10-13 07:42:05 UTC (rev 98693)
>> @@ -30,10 +30,9 @@
>>
>> depends_run-append port:okular \
>> port:kate \
>> - port:ImageMagick \
>> - port:ghostscript \
>> - port:texlive-basic \
>> - port:texlive-latex
>> + bin:convert:ImageMagick \
>> + bin:gs:ghostscript \
>> + bin:tex:texlive
>
> Why do we want to allow non-MacPorts versions of ImageMagick or Ghostscript to be used? That seems contrary to our policy:
>
> https://trac.macports.org/wiki/FAQ#ownlibs
>
> I understand the TeX change, since we make an exception to the rule for TeX.
>
More information about the macports-dev
mailing list