jmr at macports.org
Mon Jul 22 04:10:58 PDT 2013
On 2013-7-22 20:43 , John Owens wrote:
> Joshua Root wrote:
>>> How does this differ from, say, rubber or sketch or doxygen?
>>> tex/rubber/Portfile:depends_run bin:latex:texlive
>>> tex/sketch/Portfile:depends_run bin:latex:texlive
>>> textproc/doxygen/Portfile: depends_build-append bin:pdflatex:texlive \
>> Those should also be fixed to specify the port that actually provides
>> the binary.
> OK. There are many many ports with this format (@ryandesign and I led
> the effort to convert ports to this format in 2009).
TeXLive was split into multiple ports a short while after that, IIRC.
>>> My understanding is this allows the use of an externally-installed
>>> MacTeX via the binpath setting in macports.conf (so that a MacTeX user
>>> does not also have to install the voluminous texlive-* packages).
>> Sure, but they also have to work when there is not an external MacTeX.
>> Depending on the texlive port does not give you the files provided by
>> texlive-latex, texlive-latex-extra, and texlive-latex-recommended
>> (unless it happens to be installed with +full).
> If we do, say, bin:latex:texlive-latex, will that work with MacTeX via
> binpath? I changed it from port:texlive-latex-extra to
> bin:pdflatex:texlive so it wouldn't install MacPorts's texlive. But if
> bin:pdflatex:texlive-latex-extra works (or
> bin:pdflatex:texlive-latex-recommended), that solves the problem nicely.
The dependency is considered to be satisfied if the executable specified
in the middle is present in the $PATH.
More information about the macports-dev