#27709: revtex: version bump -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: nickolas.fotopoulos@… | Owner: dports@… Type: update | Status: assigned Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 1.9.2 Keywords: | Port: revtex -------------------------------------------+-------------------------------- Comment(by dports@…): Replying to [comment:3 nickolas.fotopoulos@…]:
texlive-publishers seems like a very nice alternative indeed. Would there be any way to make the description more verbose such that "port search revtex" would also return texlive-publishers? Version number is also important.
Yes, I agree that discoverability is important and the current state of things isn't great -- how is one to know that revtex is in texlive- publishers or that lineno is in texlive-humanities or that the rest of the known universe is hiding in texlive-latex-extra. There is http://trac.macports.org/wiki/TeXLivePackages, but that's not exactly discoverable itself! Putting the list of package names into the long_description sounds like a good idea. Unfortunately I don't have version number information for every package. (Well, other than that revtex and revtex4 are separate packages.)
Would it be too complicated to make it a meta-package that pulls in whatever explicit sub-packages exist, then provide the rest itself?
We've done this when it's useful to do so for some reason, e.g. with pgf. In general, I'd rather not because then we'd have to keep the individual packages up to date, which was what I was hoping to avoid! More generally, we have a bunch of ports that install individual tex packages which are also in texlive and it's not clear what we should do with them. Most of them date back to the teTeX days and some (but not all) are unmaintained and/or outdated. Perhaps it's best to mark them as replaced_by the appropriate texlive package, so we wouldn't have to worry about explicitly keeping it up to date (or making sure it actually works correctly with texlive, which I'm not even sure of in some cases...). The obvious disadvantages to doing this are that the packages might be harder to find, and you'd lose the ability to install them individually. With separate ports we could also apply updates to get a more current version than the latest texlive, but in practice the opposite seems more likely. A bigger possible problem is that we'd lose the ability to use these ports with pTeX, a teTeX-based distribution (or, I guess, teTeX itself, but it's so long dead that I'm not going to expend any effort worrying about maintaining compatibility with it). -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/27709#comment:6> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS