rubber: please update depends_run

[jowens (John Owens)]

For the rubber port, please update depends_run to

depends_run     bin:latex:texlive

as that allows use of rubber without installing MacPorts's texlive (for users who use MacTeX or the like).

[milosh@…]

It would be against macports' policy. The depends_run scheme that is present in rubber's portfile has been agreed on for all ports depending on tex. If you want it to be satisfied without installing a macports tex distribution, you can create a symlink in $prefix/bin that points to your bibtex binary.

[jowens (John Owens)]

I respectfully disagree. Current dependencies in the tree (thanks Ryan):

    1 bin:bibtex:texlive
    1 bin:kpsewhich:texlive
    9 bin:latex:texlive
    6 bin:mktexlsr:texlive
    3 bin:pdflatex:texlive
    1 bin:pdftex:texlive
   16 bin:tex:texlive
    4 bin:texhash:texlive
    1 path:${prefix}/bin/dvips:texlive
    1 path:${prefix}/bin/pdflatex:texlive
    1 path:${prefix}/bin/tex:texlive
    1 path:bin/bibtex:texlive
    1 path:bin/latex:texlive
    1 path:bin/pdflatex:texlive
    1 path:bin/tex:texlive
    2 path:include/kpathsea/kpathsea.h:texlive
   17 port:texlive

Absolutely the trend in ports has been toward using bin:binary:texlive so that MacTeX can be used.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Replying to john_owens@…:

Absolutely the trend in ports has been toward using bin:binary:texlive so that MacTeX can be used.

I am no longer certain what the trend is or what was agreed upon. It has been discussed extensively in #12913 and also ​on the mailing list. All I know is the ports that currently depend on texlive do so in different ways, and it would be good to change them all to one common way. What that way is, I don't know.

[jowens (John Owens)]

Replying to ryandesign@…:

Replying to john_owens@…:

Absolutely the trend in ports has been toward using bin:binary:texlive so that MacTeX can be used.

I am no longer certain what the trend is or what was agreed upon. It has been discussed extensively in #12913 and also ​on the mailing list. All I know is the ports that currently depend on texlive do so in different ways, and it would be good to change them all to one common way. What that way is, I don't know.

Ryan, you told me in an email on 6 Dec 2008 that "It seems like a consensus was reached that the dependencies should be changed to bin:something:texlive so that adding /usr/texbin to the binpath would allow things to work." I think this is the right thing to do. texlive ports have consistently lagged behind MacTeX distributions, and the ability to selfupdate within MacTeX is really an enormously important feature that just isn't supported within the macports structure today. Of course we should continue to keep a texlive port to keep everything self-contained within macports, especially for users who aren't using TeX directly, but it seems to me that there's zero downside to using bin:binary:texlive, which makes both macports-texlive users happy AND makes MacTeX users happy.

[milosh@…]

Let me also quote Ryan ;).

In ​http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2008-January/004141.html :

Using something like "bin:latex:texlive" is discouraged because a latex binary outside of the MacPorts prefix would satisfy the dependency, but we don't want it to; we only want latex binaries installed by MacPorts to be detected. Therefore, "path:${prefix}/bin/latex:texlive" should be used instead.

Seems I was the only one following even though I was in favor of bin:latex:texlive in the beginning!

[jowens (John Owens)]

Maybe Ryan changed his mind between January and December. :)

Oh Oracle of Ryan, I know that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but what are you thinking today about the right way to go here?

Look, texlive is a nasty nasty port to write. I spent several weeks trying to help Edd debug 2008 last fall and we didn't get it working even then. It wasn't available until months after MacTeX was, and the MacTeX people are really good at what they do. And the selfupdate feature is really cool. Unless we have someone who really wants to take the texlive port over and make sure it's a rock and comes out soon after texlive is released, I think the right thing to do is to let macports users leverage MacTeX if possible.

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Replying to john_owens@…:

Maybe Ryan changed his mind between January and December. :)

I think by January I had forgotten what I wrote in December...

Oh Oracle of Ryan, I know that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but what are you thinking today about the right way to go here?

I don't mind TeX being an exception to the rule, so go ahead and make it "bin:latex:texlive" in rubber and other ports that need TeX. If I forget this again by next month, feel free to smack me.

[nerdling (Jeremy Lavergne)]

Replying to ryandesign@…:

If I forget this again by next month, feel free to smack me.

Can I go ahead and smack you now in case I forget then?

[nerdling (Jeremy Lavergne)]

Committed in r56942. I just want to check: latex and not bibtex is the binary you're checking, correct?

[milosh@…]

Either latex or bibtex is fine yes.