Re: pkg/55741 (consider removing tex-lwarp from meta-pkgs/texlive-collection-latexrecommended)

[Clausen, Jörn <joern.clausen%uni-bielefeld.de@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR pkg/55741; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: =?UTF-8?Q?Clausen=2c_J=c3=b6rn?= <joern.clausen%uni-bielefeld.de@localhost>
To: <gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>, <pkg-manager%netbsd.org@localhost>,
	<pkgsrc-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>, <gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost>, <wiz%netbsd.org@localhost>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: pkg/55741 (consider removing tex-lwarp from
 meta-pkgs/texlive-collection-latexrecommended)
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:05:07 +0200

 Sigh.... Why do you think I opened this PR? I personally couldn't care 
 less if this gets fixed in pkgsrc, my solution is just a hash sign at 
 the right place.
 
 But I was under the impression, that pkgsrc tries to provide the maximum 
 number of working packages to as many supported platforms as possible.
 
 And why should this IMvHO get fixed in pkgsrc? Because this is not TeX 
 Live's business. Neither do they support Sparc as a plattform, nor do 
 they have to consider the building of xindy and hence clisp, because it 
 is out of their scope. But in the pkgsrc world, at the moment a whole 
 bunch of vital LaTeX packages cannot get installed (well, at least not 
 with the intended ease), because one dependency of a meta-package is not 
 available for all the plattforms pkgsrc claims to support. So I do 
 firmly believe that the right solution is that pkgsrc deviates from 
 upstream here and comes to a different conclusion what belongs into this 
 package.
 
 I know that I and my PRs are usually a PITA for the pkgsrc maintainers. 
 Nevertheless, I would expect better than being told off and getting the 
 door slammed in the face with less than five minutes of consideration.
 
 -- 
 Jörn Clausen
 BITS - Bielefelder IT-Servicezentrum
 https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/bits