[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
scale.
> 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).
OK.
--
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