[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: texlive organization on netbsd
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 02:02:50PM -0400, Ian D. Leroux wrote:
> but until you say what you do intend we're all just guessing:
I clearly started off the thread proposing inclusion of a package manager
for texlive in pkgsrc, and if not pkgsrc-wip. I volunteered to create one
and just to avoid duplication of work I asked a few questions.
> 1- If you don't care what pkgsrc does, but just want to install
> software in directories you control using tlmgr/pip/npm/ etc., go
> ahead. If it doesn't involve pkgsrc, there's no reason to argue about
> it on this list.
I'll do that (installation outside) now. (This is not to say "I don't care
about pkgsrc"! I pretty much care about pkgsrc).
By shear existence of pip and npm in pkgsrc I thought there might be
people who care about similar option for texlive in pkgsrc, who could have
possibly helped me create a wip package or at least said that if I create
one they'd use it.
I am also trying to say why they should be interested in this from a
broader perspective. I think that's a healthy discussion, not an argument.
I myself am a member of pkgsrc users for 8 years and have contributed bits
and pieces at times. I think expressing my views after this should not be
seen as "arguing on the list".
It's not going to be scalable to map package of so fine granularity and so
large a number. But I'll rest that point here as I made it a no of times.
> 2- If you think that tlmgr is a useful program and just want to be able
> to install it from pkgsrc (and then use it however you like), then sure,
> create wip/tlmgr. As long as the rest of pkgsrc doesn't have to deal
> with it and it's just another program that is useful to some people and
> which the rest of us can ignore, then I doubt that anyone will object
> very hard. There's lots of software in pkgsrc that I don't personally
> like, but I'm free not to use it.
Knowing nobody cares is so useful. I'll create it in /usr/local for
myself. At least this thread helped me make that decision.
> 3- If you think that pkgsrc should stop trying to package software
> written in python, R, TeX, and just assume that everyone will use
> pip/tlmgr/etc. then people who use software written in those languages,
> and want to manage that software while enjoying the various guarantees
> and conveniences that pkgsrc provides, will disagree. As long as
> they're willing to do the work of packaging, that's their prerogative.
> Certainly anything that is required by other software in pkgsrc has to
> be included in pkgsrc, to allow proper dependency management.
No, I don't want anyone to stop anyone from doing anything. It's a matter
of keeping options open. If I wish I can use pip and npm today in pkgsrc
and concede some of the guarantees at my own risks or bear with some pain
of dependency management.
The privilege of choice that I have with pip/npm/alike is not available
> 4- If you think that pkgsrc should use pip/tlmgr/npm/etc. internally to
> install software in LOCALBASE (where it might influence the behaviour
> of other packages), you'll get hard rejections of the sort we've
> already seen in this thread. Allowing uncontrolled modifications of
> the contents of LOCALBASE by things which are not actual packages
> breaks pkgsrc.
> If you've been intending 1 while others have been reacting to 4, then
> we've all been arguing at cross-purposes.
I did not quite follow this as pip/npm exist on pkgsrc and are already
Main Index |
Thread Index |