[MacPorts] #46896: LaTeXML: update to 0.8.1 and fix Perl branches

MacPorts noreply at macports.org
Wed Feb 18 22:43:15 PST 2015

#46896: LaTeXML: update to 0.8.1 and fix Perl branches
  Reporter:  bruce.miller@…  |      Owner:  macports-tickets@…
      Type:  update          |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal          |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports           |    Version:
Resolution:                  |   Keywords:  maintainer haspatch
      Port:  latexml         |

Comment (by mojca@…):

 Replying to [comment:3 bruce.miller@…]:
 > Unfortunately, I rarely get access to a Mac to do development on, and am
 not in a position to do any testing soon.  I develop on Linux, but have
 users on Macs.

 Maybe at least one of the users (or someone CCed here) would be willing to
 do some basic testing. Else we can also commit the change and wait for the
 first user to start complaining ;)

 > Ideally, I'd stumble across a MacPorts maintainer that was interested in
 actually ''using'' LaTeXML, and would be willing to take on the maintainer
 status for LaTeXML without feeling taken advantage of.

 (I usually don't even need XML output, but my favourite flavour of TeX
 already supports HTML/XML/MathML output out of the box ;)

 It is very valuable to have the original developer as a maintainer or co-
 maintainer though. Sometimes (for some projects) it is very difficult to
 get the patches upstream.

 > I'd hoped that the update would be a simple matter of updating the
 version & checksums

 It usually is. But you explicitly wrote that some user had a problem and I
 can verify that the "old" port doesn't behave properly if the version of
 Perl changes.

 > but it looks like there's a deeper problem with the strategy for perl
 versions; and maybe some controversy?

 Yes. There's a big question of whether we need to support multiple
 versions of Perl or not. Both on the MacPorts scale as well as on the port

 > It sounds like Ryan isn't too fond of the idea of simultaneously
 supporting several versions. Should we just revert it to the
 straightforward 5.16 only?

 I don't know. There are lots of reasons to keep support for multiple
 versions and lots of reasons to remove it. It's more a matter of a
 personal opinion/taste, even though we should probably decide about the
 guidelines on the global MacPorts scale.

 (In any case it is not wrong to keep support for multiple versions. But
 the way it is/was set up now hardly made any sense because the selection
 didn't even work.)

 > Without understanding the details of the perl port group, however, what
 you said about the order of commands makes sense.
 > BTW: I don't think there's much use in separating out the executables
 from the modules; the modules are really just the implementation of the
 executables (although they ''could'' be used independently).


Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/46896#comment:4>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X

More information about the macports-tickets mailing list