>>>>> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> As you might guess it, having a modular layout can give dependencies
> problems. I was thinking about adding some (new style) virtuals to
> handle them :
> - virtual/tex-base : programs that need only standard tex binaries
> or libraires (like kpathsea) but do not need it to compile latex
> files for example. There are a very very few of such packages and
> are ok with the next virtual, so I dunno if that one is really
> necessary, apart for reducing deps to the minimal set.
> - virtual/latex-base : packages that need a (basic) latex, for
> example to compile their documentation. This virtual will help
> preventing from having circular dependencies between ebuilds (esp.
> the meta ebuild and its dependencies)
> - virtual/latex-full : a full latex distribution installation, what
> other tex distributions like tetex provide. This one can use the
> current old style virtual (virtual/tetex) instead of being a new
> one, but the name is better imho.
> So in the end, only latex-base is strictly required to merge this.
> tex-base and latex-full have their improvements but can benefit from
> discussion here.
I would be strongly in favour of adding also the tex-base virtual [1].
Packages requiring plain TeX are now migrated to IUSE=tex, as
suggested in bug #196745 [2], and it is not consistent if they must
now depend on virtual/latex-base.
Of course one could add explicit any-of-many dependencies for
texlive-core or {te,p,cste}tex everywhere, but I think it is much
better if this is handled in one place.
Ulrich
[1]
<http://overlays.gentoo.org/dev/aballier/browser/texlive-overlay/virtual/tex-base>
[2] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/196745#c4>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
