[MacPorts] #27709: revtex: version bump

[MacPorts]

#27709: revtex: version bump
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
 Reporter:  nickolas.fotopoulos@…          |       Owner:  dports@…           
     Type:  update                         |      Status:  assigned           
 Priority:  Normal                         |   Milestone:                     
Component:  ports                          |     Version:  1.9.2              
 Keywords:                                 |        Port:  revtex             
-------------------------------------------+--------------------------------

Comment(by dports@…):

 Replying to [comment:3 nickolas.fotopoulos@…]:
 > texlive-publishers seems like a very nice alternative indeed. Would
 there be any way to make the description more verbose such that "port
 search revtex" would also return texlive-publishers? Version number is
 also important.

 Yes, I agree that discoverability is important and the current state of
 things isn't great -- how is one to know that revtex is in texlive-
 publishers or that lineno is in texlive-humanities or that the rest of the
 known universe is hiding in texlive-latex-extra. There is
 http://trac.macports.org/wiki/TeXLivePackages, but that's not exactly
 discoverable itself!

 Putting the list of package names into the long_description sounds like a
 good idea. Unfortunately I don't have version number information for every
 package. (Well, other than that revtex and revtex4 are separate packages.)

 >Would it be too complicated to make it a meta-package that pulls in
 whatever explicit sub-packages exist, then provide the rest itself?

 We've done this when it's useful to do so for some reason, e.g. with pgf.
 In general, I'd rather not because then we'd have to keep the individual
 packages up to date, which was what I was hoping to avoid!

 More generally, we have a bunch of ports that install individual tex
 packages which are also in texlive and it's not clear what we should do
 with them. Most of them date back to the teTeX days and some (but not all)
 are unmaintained and/or outdated. Perhaps it's best to mark them as
 replaced_by the appropriate texlive package, so we wouldn't have to worry
 about explicitly keeping it up to date (or making sure it actually works
 correctly with texlive, which I'm not even sure of in some cases...).

 The obvious disadvantages to doing this are that the packages might be
 harder to find, and you'd lose the ability to install them individually.
 With separate ports we could also apply updates to get a more current
 version than the latest texlive, but in practice the opposite seems more
 likely. A bigger possible problem is that we'd lose the ability to use
 these ports with pTeX, a teTeX-based distribution (or, I guess, teTeX
 itself, but it's so long dead that I'm not going to expend any effort
 worrying about maintaining compatibility with it).

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/27709#comment:6>
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for Mac OS