Hi,
On Wed, Jul 08, 2026 at 10:25:37AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > In light of that, I wonder if it would be better to remove the
> > `UPDATE_PLIST_ARGS += -t ...` stuff from texmf/Makefile, and have
> > update_plist_hints.py be the source of truth for what to filter out.
> > That way we'd have the logic in one place.
>
> Not a good idea. -t will look in the ports tree, and thus be automatically
> up-to-date wrt the actual files in the port, as opposed to having to handcode
> them in your script.
I've been thinking about this some more.
`UPDATE_PLIST_ARGS += -t <pkgpath>` filters out exact paths already included in
the PLIST of <pkgpath>.
update_plist_hints.py filters out whole tex packages. Thats what I was doing
here:
```
conflict_pkgs = ["asymptote", "latexmk", ...]
conflict_pkg_files, conflict_symlinks = \
collect_files(allspecs(conflict_pkgs, include_deps=False), db)
comment_files = CONFLICT_FILES | conflict_pkg_files | commented_docs_files
```
By filtering at the tex-package-level, we remove:
- The files for the whole tex package, as it appears in the TLPDB.
- But, *regardless of where the files are installed*.
Looking at our asymptote port, it installs a load of tex files into
`share/texmf-local/tex/latex/asymptote`, but texlive (if we let it) would
install those same files under `share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/asymptote`.
So, if I understand correctly, that's why `UPDATE_PLIST_ARGS += -t
graphics/asymptote` isn't sufficient to filter out the duplicated asymptote
files: they are installed in different paths.
Therefore, it seems to be more robust for me to filter out files from tex
packages that are already separately ported at the update_plist_hints.py level,
since `UPDATE_PLIST_ARGS -t` will only remove them if the files are installed
at the same path.
What do others think?
--
Best Regards
Edd Barrett
https://www.theunixzoo.co.uk
