Re: texlive organization on netbsd

[Mayuresh <mayuresh%acm.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 01:07:42PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 07:45:56AM +0530, Mayuresh wrote:
> > We have done the right thing for python by supporting pip, and similarly
> > npm for nodejs in pkgsrc.  Wonder why not do the same for texlive.
> 
> I have no idea what you even mean here. PIP is not integrated into
> pkgsrc. It doesn't interact with the system in any meaningful way.
> Same for NPM. Both violate certain core principles of pkgsrc. With
> tlmgr, you get all that and the additional fun of no dependencies.

I was referring to devel/py-pip being present in pkgsrc.

Simple point is, I could use the python packages I needed, which weren't
in pkgsrc as soon as I needed them thanks to pip being provided by pkgsrc.

It is impracticable to map every single python/R/texlive/nodejs package to
pkgsrc. Their sheer count is intimidatingly large and ever growing.
Creating them and keeping them up to date over time would incur a lot of
effort.

The package managers of python/R/texlive/nodejs could have the problems
you mention and if there are better alternatives to them they are most
welcome. But we might as well begin with whatever we have. And we have
begun by having devel/py-pip, lang/npm and may be something for R that I
am not aware of.

Why shouldn't we extend the same logic to tlmgr?

Mayuresh