Subject: Re: pkgsrc NetBSD 3.0_BETA/i386 bulk build results 2005-11-11
To: Thomas Klausner <wiz@NetBSD.org>
From: Antoine Reilles <tonio@NetBSD.org>
Date: 11/11/2005 21:36:59
On Nov 11, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:17:01PM +0100, Krister Walfridsson wrote:
>> pkgsrc bulk build results
>> NetBSD 3.0_BETA/i386
>> devel/cweb 1 tech-pkg@NetBSD.org
> ===> teTeX2 is not an acceptable latex version for cweb-3.64nb2.
>> print/dvipdfm markd@NetBSD.org
> ===> teTeX2 is not an acceptable latex version for
>> print/ja-dvipdfm tech-pkg-ja@jp.NetBSD.org
> ===> teTeX2 is not an acceptable latex version for ja-
>> print/tex-eurosym tech-pkg@NetBSD.org
> ===> teTeX2 is not an acceptable latex version for tex-
The message is correct. those packages do not work with the default
teTeX2 distribution, because thei are already included in teTeX2, or
explicitly depends on teTeX1.
After a discussion with jlam, we agreed that it does not harm to fail
in this case, instead of relying on some magic to install teTeX1
(this was the case with previous versions of latex.mk).
Is it a problem ?
In this case, we could re-introduce the USE_TETEX1 variable and make
it override the TEX_DEFAULT value to TEX_DEFAULT=teTeX1. From a use
point of view, i don't really like it: having immediately an error
message like that is more informative. In this case, i know that i
will have to tweak the default (well, the message could be more
explicit). If it select teTeX1 automatically, you will end with
teTeX1 packages installed, and that will make a lot o other tex
packages to fail.
I don't know if we can keep the current behavior while having those
package been built by bulk build, to get some testing.