Re: packages and TeXLive revisions

[Brook Milligan <brook%nmsu.edu@localhost>]

On Aug 29, 2014, at 4:33 PM, Thomas Klausner wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 04:20:56PM -0600, Brook Milligan wrote:
>> So should that be a comment in the Makefile or an actual defined make 
>> variable?  I have seen both.  (I have also seen packages with neither.)  Is 
>> this documented anywhere?
> 
> I think it's commonly used to keep the distfiles separate, since they
> are unversioned; so usually DIST_SUBDIR is set using the revision. A
> few packages have separate version numbers, so that can be used for
> the DIST_SUBDIR as well. I think revision is just the fallback if such
> a version number does not exist.
> 
> So define if you need it for DIST_SUBDIR, make it a comment if not.

So I believe this is the basic idea of what happens based upon the contents of 
print/texlive/package.mk:

- If TEXLIVE_REV is not defined, the DIST_SUBDIR is ${PKGNAME_NOREV}, i.e., 
basically the normal package name.
- If TEXLIVE_REV is defined, the DIST_SUBDIR is ${PKGBASE} without any -doc 
suffix plus TEXLIVE_REV.

I think this means the following:

- If the package has a proper version, include that in the definition of 
PKGNAME and do not define TEXLIVE_REV (use a comment instead).
- If the package has no version, do not include any version in PKGNAME and 
define TEXLIVE_REV from the tlpkg/tlpobj/*.tlpobj file.
- There is no need to make any reference to DIST_SUBDIR as it will be set 
automatically.

Perhaps that just repeats what you said, but I wanted to be more explicit for 
future reference.  Does this sound about right?

Cheers,
Brook