[gentoo-dev] new category for texlive modular ebuilds?

[gentoo-dev] new category for texlive modular ebuilds?

[Alexis Ballier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 601 bytes --]

Hi, 

this might be worth discussion also (and make me even more late on my
schedule with merging texlive, but I knew I'd be)

In my overlay I was using a dev-texlive category for the texlive
modular texmf ebuilds
[as a side note :
dev-texlive $ ls | wc -l
79
]

that was to avoid polluting dev-tex (which would be the current most
suitable category for those ebuilds), but well, both categories are fine
by me. What do you think about it ? I'd say not polluting it and put
them in a new category is better as it doesn't cost anything, but I
might have missed something.


Alexis.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new category for texlive modular ebuilds?

[Drake Wyrm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1309 bytes --]

Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> this might be worth discussion also (and make me even more late on my
> schedule with merging texlive, but I knew I'd be)
> 
> In my overlay I was using a dev-texlive category for the texlive
> modular texmf ebuilds
> [as a side note :
> dev-texlive $ ls | wc -l
> 79
> ]
> 
> that was to avoid polluting dev-tex (which would be the current most
> suitable category for those ebuilds), but well, both categories are fine
> by me. What do you think about it ? I'd say not polluting it and put
> them in a new category is better as it doesn't cost anything, but I
> might have missed something.

I would have expected app-text, the current home of the other TeX
interpreters, to be more appropriate than dev-tex. Then again, with 79
new ebuilds, it might be prudent to open another category. If you did
that, though, I'd suggest putting texlive and the other TeX interpreters
in the same category. Perhaps app-tex would be good. Would that cause
much confusion, being one letter off from an existing category?

On the other hand (or is this back on the first hand?), 79 new packages
wouldn't be much of a splash in the 231 existing packages of app-text.

-- 
The only time I use xp is when I need to swap a pair of letters.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 206 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new category for texlive modular ebuilds?

[Alexis Ballier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 510 bytes --]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:00:38 -0700
Drake Wyrm <wyrm@haell.com> wrote:

> I would have expected app-text, the current home of the other TeX
> interpreters, to be more appropriate than dev-tex. 

I have currently two ebuilds in app-text : the -core package which
provides the tools to work with a texmf tree and the meta ebuild that
depends on other packages, basically the modular texmf ones.
What I intend to put in that category is texmf stuff, like packages
such as pgf, xcolor, etc.


Alexis.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] new category for texlive modular ebuilds?

[Alexis Ballier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 402 bytes --]


As nobody seems to complain about adding this category, I'll start
adding it and populate it when I'll have a few spare hours to merge
texlive. (most likely to be tomorrow)

that'll leave dev-tex with generic tex packages and dev-texlive with
various CTAN packages following how they're packaged into texlive
upstream (and they'll probably not work with other tex distributions).


Alexis.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]