[MacPorts] #47972: LaTeXML: texlive-related improvements

[MacPorts]

#47972: LaTeXML: texlive-related improvements
--------------------------+----------------------------
  Reporter:  mojca@…      |      Owner:  bruce.miller@…
      Type:  enhancement  |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal       |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports        |    Version:
Resolution:               |   Keywords:
      Port:  LaTeXML      |
--------------------------+----------------------------

Comment (by mojca@…):

 Replying to [comment:1 bruce.miller@…]:
 > I hadn't realized that MacPorts had adopted the many-small-packages
 approach.
 > LaTeXML doesn't actually *require* any tex, but will work best with at
 least a minimal
 > amount.  You'd likely want latex, mktexlsr, dvips, and can use dvipng,
 dvisvgm.
 > Can use other packages if they're installed, but the user can install
 whatever they
 > expect to use.
 >
 > I would guess "texlive-latex" is sufficient.

 I would try to go for `texlive-basic` if that's feasible. At least
 `mktexlsr` is part of that package.

 I added Dan to CC. Dan, in case you are reading this: would it be possible
 (feasible) to put `mktexlsr` in some even more "standalone" package? It's
 just a shell script that requires `texmf.cnf`, hardly anything more
 advanced than that.

 > > * calling `system /usr/texbin/mktexlsr` might be problematic (the
 files from MacTeX might be owned by `root`)
 >
 > That's true. Does it fail or warn in such circumstances?

 I assume it just prints warnings, but I need to check.

 > What will happen is that MacTeX's latex won't be able to find LaTeXML's
 style files,
 > unless the user re-runs mktexlsr with appropriate permissions.

 Maybe the port should skip running `mktexlsr` and ask the user to do that.

 > > * one might want to disable calling `mktexlsr` during `make install`
 >
 > Could be; Is it better to run from "make" or from "post-activate"?

 It's not sufficient to run it from `make` (not to say useless: because the
 file isn't in place at the time when `make` is called – at that time it's
 still in `destroot`). The command is needed both in `post-activate` as
 well as in `post-deactivate` because that's the step when you add or
 remove the file to/from the TeX tree

 Actually, the `post-deactivate` step is also missing now (not that it's
 really relevant though; it just means that TeX will think the file is
 there).

 > OR, does the PortGroup texlive automatically arrange for mktexlsr?

 No, it doesn't.

 > > * I can imagine that `depends_build` might not even need to depend on
 anything from TeX Live even with `+texlive` variant: all the package needs
 to do is to copy two files to the appropriate place (or am I wrong?).
 >
 > Other than mktexlsr (so the files are findable by TeX), that's right.

 `mktexlsr` during make is useless as already explained above. At the time
 when latexml's scripts call `mktexlsr` the relevant files are at some
 obscure location in `destroot`. You previously needed `kpsewhich` in the
 `Portfile`, but we also got rid of that one.

 (I don't know what happens if you ask for `texlive.mktexlsr` in a `post-
 activate` step on the buildbot. Maybe we should test and file a bug report
 if it fails ;)

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/47972#comment:2>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X