Bug 43771 - LaTeX ports mixed between print and textproc
Summary: LaTeX ports mixed between print and textproc
Status: Closed FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: Normal Affects Only Me
Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody)
Depends on:
Reported: 2002-10-07 16:10 UTC by hburch
Modified: 2005-11-29 23:40 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description hburch 2002-10-07 16:10:01 UTC
Ignoring the foreign language ports, there are 35 that contain "latex" in the INDEX.  Some of these are in other places for a reason (biology/chemeq, mail/mahogany (latex2html dependency?), and math/naturalmath), but there are 24 ports in print and 8 in textproc.

The most obvious problem is that html2latex and htmltolatex are in different directories (html2latex in textproc and htmltolatex in print (y2l is in textproc as well)).


The 8 ports that are currently in textproc should be considered for movement to print.  Although print seems like an odd place for them to me, it appears to be the majority decision.
How-To-Repeat: $ locate latex | grep pkg-descr | grep ports | grep -v korean | grep -v japanese

$ grep -i latex /usr/ports/INDEX | cut -d\| -f2 | grep -v korean | grep -v chinese | grep -v japanese | grep -v hebrew
Comment 1 Mark Linimon freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2003-11-16 23:39:13 UTC
Responsible Changed
From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->linimon

This is the only currently-unassigned repocopy PR, so I'll sign up 
to look at it.  The solution proposed here isn't optimal -- really, 
I think you could make the argument that most of the listed ports 
in "print" really belong in either converters, or possibly textproc. 
There may be enough ports here for a virtual category, which might 
be one way of finessing the problem.
Comment 2 Alexander Leidinger 2004-02-02 14:47:05 UTC
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:07:44 -0600
Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote:

> One of the abandonded PRs I adopted has to do with this (ports/43771).
> In it, the question is asked, should this be a virtual category, or a
> physical one?  (I might slightly favor the latter).
> The other question that's asked in there is whether some ports currently
> in "print" really belong in either converters, or possibly textproc.  (There
> is some overlap).  I'd like to get other people's opinions on whether
> those ports need repocopies, or at the least, secondary categories.

New major category "tex":
 - everything related

 - lyx: belongs IMHO into editor
 - lout: reading the pkg-descr and the hompage I don't see why it
   should belong into tex... it's "LaTeX like", but that's all


           I will be available to get hired in April 2004.

http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander @ Leidinger.net
  GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Comment 3 Mark Linimon freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2004-02-10 19:53:57 UTC
State Changed
From-To: open->suspended

This PR will probably be obsoleted by the upcoming "tex" physical 
category for ports.
Comment 4 Mark Linimon freebsd_committer freebsd_triage 2004-03-26 15:14:04 UTC
Responsible Changed
From-To: linimon->freebsd-ports-bugs

Someone else more interested in the repocopy work needed to 
establish the 'tex' category should take this one on.
Comment 5 Florent Thoumie freebsd_committer 2005-11-29 23:38:54 UTC
State Changed
From-To: suspended->closed

Nobody volunteered for the tex category. Mark is right IMHO saying that 
some ports are ok either in print or in textproc.  Somebody needed to 
make the step and kill this PR so that it doesn't rot in GNATS forever. 
I volunteered. 

Thanks for your submission anyway.