FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-23-2010, 06:22 PM
"Andreas K. Huettel"
 
Default Fwd: latex packages achemso, revtex

See below... I never got a response from tex@g.o - who else could I talk to?
TIA, cheers, Andreas

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: latex packages achemso, revtex
Date: Saturday 18 September 2010, 14:31:11
From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
To: tex@gentoo.org

Hi,

as a newbie gentoo developer with sci background, I'd like to suggest a few
small things for dev-tex:

* dev-tex/achemso(-1.0) should be masked and then removed, since texlive-2009
contains already version 3.3.

* I'd like to move dev-tex/revtex-4.1_p2 and its dependency dev-
tex/natbib-8.31a from the sci overlay to the main tree (newer than all texlive
versions).

Would it be OK with you if I do any of this? If yes, could you please have a
quick look at the revtex and natbib ebuilds if I am using the eclass
correctly?

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/sci.git;a=blob;f=dev-
tex/natbib/natbib-8.31a.ebuild;hb=HEAD
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/sci.git;a=blob;f=dev-
tex/revtex/revtex-4.1_p2.ebuild;hb=HEAD

Thanks in advance,
Andreas

-----------------------------------------
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer - kde, sci, sunrise
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
 
Old 09-26-2010, 07:01 PM
Alexis Ballier
 
Default Fwd: latex packages achemso, revtex

Hi,

On Thursday 23 September 2010 14:22:10 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> See below... I never got a response from tex@g.o - who else could I talk
> to? TIA, cheers, Andreas


you did it the correct way but that's what happens when you're alone in a team
and are moving without reliable internet connection then emails & other stuff
start to pile up :/


>
> ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> Subject: latex packages achemso, revtex
> Date: Saturday 18 September 2010, 14:31:11
> From: "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org>
> To: tex@gentoo.org
>
> Hi,
>
> as a newbie gentoo developer with sci background, I'd like to suggest a few
> small things for dev-tex:
>
> * dev-tex/achemso(-1.0) should be masked and then removed, since
> texlive-2009 contains already version 3.3.

Feel free to last rite it; or better: step up as a maintainer and bump it so
that you'll be sure to always have the greatest version and don't depend on
texlive's yearly releases
(and even better: join tex herd if you're interested in doing such bumps)


> * I'd like to move dev-tex/revtex-4.1_p2 and its dependency dev-
> tex/natbib-8.31a from the sci overlay to the main tree (newer than all
> texlive versions).
>
> Would it be OK with you if I do any of this?

yes though if its in texlive I usually want to remove them from the texlive's
bundle if single packages are maintained (avoiding installing useless files
with texlive's ebuilds that will be overlayed by yours)

> If yes, could you please have
> a quick look at the revtex and natbib ebuilds if I am using the eclass
> correctly?

you must set:
TEXMF=/usr/share/texmf-site
in both ebuilds so that they are installed there and are used as overlay
(yes the eclass' default should be changed)

> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/sci.git;a=blob;f=dev-
> tex/natbib/natbib-8.31a.ebuild;hb=HEAD

dont forget to use mirror://gentoo for this one when moving to the tree

> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/sci.git;a=blob;f=dev-
> tex/revtex/revtex-4.1_p2.ebuild;hb=HEAD

besides these minor comments, everything seems good

A.
 
Old 09-26-2010, 07:31 PM
"Andreas K. Huettel"
 
Default Fwd: latex packages achemso, revtex

Hi Alexis,

> you did it the correct way but that's what happens when you're alone in a
> team and are moving without reliable internet connection then emails &
> other stuff start to pile up :/

I'm sorry, I did not want to be pushy in any way... :|

> > * dev-tex/achemso(-1.0) should be masked and then removed, since
> > texlive-2009 contains already version 3.3.
>
> Feel free to last rite it; or better: step up as a maintainer and bump it
> so that you'll be sure to always have the greatest version and don't
> depend on texlive's yearly releases

Lastrite is probably better in this case. Not much has changed recently and
texlive is current afaik.

> (and even better: join tex herd if you're interested in doing such bumps)

Done, also tex@g.o. (Gimme more Bugzilla mails...)

> > * I'd like to move dev-tex/revtex-4.1_p2 and its dependency dev-
> > tex/natbib-8.31a from the sci overlay
> > Would it be OK with you if I do any of this?
>
> yes though if its in texlive I usually want to remove them from the
> texlive's bundle

I see the separate ebuilds more as a temporary workaround for the few really
needing bleeding edge... and will happily remove them again when texlive-2011
is out. The natbib ebuild might even become obsolete with texlive-2010
already, have not checked yet. I think most people will be happy with the
texlive version, so we should keep it for simplicity.

Thanks for the tips with the ebuilds; I'll go ahead in the next days.

Best, Andreas


--

Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
dilfridge@gentoo.org
http://www.akhuettel.de/
 
Old 09-28-2010, 09:35 PM
Alexis Ballier
 
Default Fwd: latex packages achemso, revtex

Hi,

> > you did it the correct way but that's what happens when you're alone in a
> > team and are moving without reliable internet connection then emails &
> > other stuff start to pile up :/
>
> I'm sorry, I did not want to be pushy in any way... :|

No problem at all; had I set my .away you could have had a way to know


[...]
> > (and even better: join tex herd if you're interested in doing such bumps)
>
> Done, also tex@g.o. (Gimme more Bugzilla mails...)

Thanks

> > > * I'd like to move dev-tex/revtex-4.1_p2 and its dependency dev-
> > > tex/natbib-8.31a from the sci overlay
> > > Would it be OK with you if I do any of this?
> >
> > yes though if its in texlive I usually want to remove them from the
> > texlive's bundle
>
> I see the separate ebuilds more as a temporary workaround for the few
> really needing bleeding edge... and will happily remove them again when
> texlive-2011 is out. The natbib ebuild might even become obsolete with
> texlive-2010 already, have not checked yet. I think most people will be
> happy with the texlive version, so we should keep it for simplicity.

It's really a matter of compromise: TeX world isn't fast moving thus yearly
releases such as texlive are perfectly fine and avoid a huge mess in
dependencies (you can see texlive as a downstream for CTAN to some extent). If
you have a package moving faster and want to maintain it then it's better to
do so since you remove one level of indirection.
Our system of texmf-site overlay allows to have such temporary solutions by
installing duplicate files and using the ones in texmf-site with higher
priority but it's not perfectly "clean" as some files are installed twice and
only one version is used in any case.
If the temporary solution has to stay for 1 year then IMHO it's better to make
the switch and unbundle it from texlive and not considering it as a temporary
solution (esp. now that TeX Live 2010 has been released but is not in the
portage tree); if it will become unneeded with TeX Live 2010 then if I were
you I'd wait until I have the time to make it into the portage tree

May I ask which texlive package natbib and revtex belong to ?

Regards,

A.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org