It depends on how the exception is understood. As the texlive distribution on Mac comes with its own distribution of ghostcript and ImageMagick, I considered that the exception was applied to the whole package, and not only to the pure tex binaries.
However, after checking, I realised that the binaries for ghostscript and ImageMagick are installed in /usr/local/bin and not in /usr/texbin as the tex executables, so that they are in a path which should be avoided from the start, contrarily to what I thought. I thus reverted it in r98704. Thanks for the remark. On Oct 13, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Oct 13, 2012, at 02:42, [email protected] wrote: > >> Revision: 98693 >> http://trac.macports.org//changeset/98693 >> Author: [email protected] >> Date: 2012-10-13 00:42:05 -0700 (Sat, 13 Oct 2012) >> Log Message: >> ----------- >> kde4-kile: passing tex dependencies to binary instead of ports >> >> Modified Paths: >> -------------- >> trunk/dports/tex/kde4-kile/Portfile >> >> Modified: trunk/dports/tex/kde4-kile/Portfile >> =================================================================== >> --- trunk/dports/tex/kde4-kile/Portfile 2012-10-13 05:00:05 UTC (rev >> 98692) >> +++ trunk/dports/tex/kde4-kile/Portfile 2012-10-13 07:42:05 UTC (rev >> 98693) >> @@ -30,10 +30,9 @@ >> >> depends_run-append port:okular \ >> port:kate \ >> - port:ImageMagick \ >> - port:ghostscript \ >> - port:texlive-basic \ >> - port:texlive-latex >> + bin:convert:ImageMagick \ >> + bin:gs:ghostscript \ >> + bin:tex:texlive > > Why do we want to allow non-MacPorts versions of ImageMagick or Ghostscript > to be used? That seems contrary to our policy: > > https://trac.macports.org/wiki/FAQ#ownlibs > > I understand the TeX change, since we make an exception to the rule for TeX. > _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
