Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: TeXLive modular ebuilds ready(?) for the main portage tree

2007-11-24 Thread Ulrich Mueller
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Alexis Ballier wrote: I would be strongly in favour of adding also the tex-base virtual. +1 [...] If nobody is against it, feel free to commit this (with or without cstetex, as you wish, I'll kill references to it before removing it anyway); or I'll do it when I'll

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: TeXLive modular ebuilds ready(?) for the main portage tree

2007-11-22 Thread Alexis Ballier
Hi, I would be strongly in favour of adding also the tex-base virtual [1]. +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

[gentoo-dev] Re: TeXLive modular ebuilds ready(?) for the main portage tree

2007-11-21 Thread Ulrich Mueller
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)

[gentoo-dev] Re: TeXLive modular ebuilds ready(?) for the main portage tree

2007-11-21 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Ulrich Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I would be strongly in favour of adding also the tex-base virtual [1]. When I spoke against it, I assumed there would be near to no packages which could use it...so I change my opinion. V-Li -- Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project

[gentoo-dev] Re: TeXLive modular ebuilds ready(?) for the main portage tree

2007-10-02 Thread Christian Faulhammer
Alexis Ballier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I've had several success reports, and fixed the remaining (known) bugs there. I was thinking that it might be time to integrate this to the official tree, as a first shoot under package.mask. You would make so many people happy, if one has a look at the size

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: TeXLive modular ebuilds ready(?) for the main portage tree

2007-10-02 Thread Alexis Ballier
Something that annoys me is the license : there is [3], [4] and [5], so GPL-2 might probably be fine, but I'm definitely not a lawyer... You can add several licenses to LICENSE. And a lot of packages are LPPL, so you really need to adjust it. There has been a discussion on the TeXLive