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)). Fix: 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 /usr/ports/biology/chemeq /usr/ports/mail/mahogany /usr/ports/math/naturalmath /usr/ports/print/auctex /usr/ports/print/cjk-lyx /usr/ports/print/cpp2latex /usr/ports/print/detex /usr/ports/print/guitartex /usr/ports/print/html2latex /usr/ports/print/hugelatex /usr/ports/print/hyperlatex /usr/ports/print/jadetex /usr/ports/print/ktexshell /usr/ports/print/latex /usr/ports/print/latex2rtf /usr/ports/print/latex2slides /usr/ports/print/lgrind /usr/ports/print/lout /usr/ports/print/lyx /usr/ports/print/preview-latex /usr/ports/print/rtf2latex /usr/ports/print/tgif2tex /usr/ports/print/tr2latex /usr/ports/print/yatex /usr/ports/print/yatex-mule /usr/ports/print/yatex-xemacs /usr/ports/print/yatex-xemacs-mule /usr/ports/textproc/hevea /usr/ports/textproc/htmltolatex /usr/ports/textproc/lacheck /usr/ports/textproc/latex2html /usr/ports/textproc/tex2im /usr/ports/textproc/word2x /usr/ports/textproc/y2l /usr/ports/textproc/yodl
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.
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 Exceptions: - 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 Bye, Alexander. -- 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
State Changed From-To: open->suspended This PR will probably be obsoleted by the upcoming "tex" physical category for ports.
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.
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.