maintainer-approval requested: [Bug 226983] print/texlive-full: Missing dependency with SOURCE=ON: print/texlive-texmf-source : [Attachment 231152] Mk/bsd.tex.mk: make TEX=source depend on an existing file

Rainer Hurling <rhurlin@FreeBSD.org> has asked Tex Mailing List (Nobody)
<tex@FreeBSD.org> for maintainer-approval:
Bug 226983: print/texlive-full: Missing dependency with SOURCE=ON:
print/texlive-texmf-source
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226983

Attachment 231152: Mk/bsd.tex.mk: make TEX=source depend on an existing file
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=231152&action=edit



--- Comment #8 from Rainer Hurling <rhurlin@FreeBSD.org> ---
Created attachment 231152
  --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=231152&action=edit
Mk/bsd.tex.mk: make TEX=source depend on an existing file

> One thing I wonder is: wouldn't it be better to leave the version out of
bsd.tex.mk
> altogether? I just added it because there are other version checks as well,
but
> somehow, that looks like a fragile thing to do (will be forgotten on updates
anyways)?

It seems, Poudriere behaves right without a version also.

> Wait, now I get you say it's the *other* way around. With my patch, the
dependency
> will be on version 20150523 (or later), and that *is* the actual version of
the
> texlive-texmf-source package. So,I don't see why this would not work? That's
strange!


Since I'm not sure if it makes sense at all to put a package instead of a file
into the _DEPS line (all other _DEPS always contain concrete files), I tried
another approach:

I picked out a file from the filelist of print/texlive-texmf-source which is
most likely to be permanently included in the package and used it in
Mk/bsd.tex.mk instead of .keep_me. And lo and behold, that seems to work
without any problems.

Probably this approach is more in the spirit of the framework. But it would be
good if someone else from the tex team could say something about it.