Subject: Re: pkgsrc NetBSD 3.0_BETA/i386 bulk build results 2005-11-11
To: Antoine Reilles <tonio@NetBSD.org>
From: Thomas Klausner <wiz@NetBSD.org>
Date: 11/12/2005 00:04:13
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.