Re: pkgsrc NetBSD 3.0_BETA/i386 bulk build results 2005-11-11

[Thomas Klausner <wiz%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 09:36:59PM +0100, Antoine Reilles wrote:
> 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 ?

Not really, except that the bulk build doesn't build them and marks
them as broken.

> 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.

No, I don't like this solution.

> I don't know if we can keep the current behavior while having those  
> package been built by bulk build, to get some testing.

Either make them build against teTeX1 in the bulk build somehow,
or skip them for the bulk build. I think they don't really belong
in the "Broken Packages" category, more in the "Not Packaged" one.
I currently don't know how to achieve that.

Cheers,
 Thomas