freebsd at edvax.de
Wed Oct 10 22:03:45 UTC 2012
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 21:32:43 +0100, Jamie Paul Griffin wrote:
> I imagine it would be a lot of work to integrate it into the ports
> system not to mention it would take an age to compile it.
> There has been a lot of work done by developers to provide
> binaries for FreeBSD with the main texlive distribution so it's not
> necessary to integrate into the ports system. What would be nice is if
> certain ports that require a tex distribution can be used with the
> texlive distribution that available from tug.org already.
> Projects like Macports have been able to do this, if this became
> possible for FreeBSD ports then it would be great.
While I see clear advantages in TeXlive being a "self-integrated
distribution of software", it doesn't really fit the idea of the
ports collection, which is a means to _centrally_ compile,
install (or fetch from precompiled packages from a trusted
source), patch, update or remove software by using system
tools (the pkg_* commands) or additional utilities (like
portmaster, portupgrade etc.). Having all the software bring
their own distribution system, web-based obtaining and their
own "micro-updating" mechanism (inside the software itself)
looks a bit outdated.
Allow me to share my inspiration: What I primarily like about
the ports infrastructure is the fact that it combines several
tasks done to (or with) software by a standardized interface,
not distributing those tasks across the software itself. I can
use pkg_add, portmaster, "make install", even all of them,
and I don't even have to launch a web browser to search for
or manually download software. I also do not have to deal with
"micro-management" systems which is different from port to port.
All ports "talk the same language", e. g. "make deinstall" does
deinstall the port, no matter _which_ port I choose.
I would really like to see TeXlive being available maybe as a
precompiled package (for use with pkg_add) so it can easily be
installed without actually fetching it from a "non-system"
source. Dependencies requesting a TeX package should honor
either _which_ TeX is already installed (teTeX or TeXlive)
or look at a configuration setting, for example WITH_TEX= in
/etc/make.conf, as I suggested. That could deliver a relatively
Not relying on 3rd party sources is a great advantage. If you
use Java, you know what I'm refering to. Go to the web and
download it to distfiles/, then resume the build... :-)
For building TeXlive: Some people intendedly _want_ to build
the stuff they use from source. Others are fine if "make install"
fetches some binaries somewhere and installs them (for example
this is what "make install" means for the Opera web browser in
the first place). Such a "binary distribution" would be easy
to implement, even though it might be quite huge (but that
could be changed by stripping all non-FreeBSD parts from
TeXlive). Still I see the "problem" of TeXlive's own package
management system. Integrating _that_ with subports (or
havving TeXlive as a metaport) doesn't look easy.
As I don't need any feature of TeXlive, I'm _currently_ still
using teTeX because it does everything I need. But I agree
that TeXlive will be regarded _the_ TeX distribution in the
future, leaving teTeX in the past...
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions