On 2024/11/21 19:10, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 22:33:15 +0100,
> Edd Barrett <edd@theunixzoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > Here's the update to TeX Live 2024.
> > 
> > Notes:
> > 
> >  - ConTeXt is unbroken this time. Requires the luametatex update I just posted.
> > 
> >  - I disabled dvisvgm because it's build system is broken and can't be
> >    persuaded to unbundle its deps. Shout if you use this program. We can port
> >    it separately if need be.
> >    https://tug.org/pipermail/tldistro/2024q2/000477.html
> > 
> >  - Tested with a partial bulk on anything that {LIB,BUILD}_DEPENDS on TL. All
> >    OK on amd64. Can anyone try on big endian?
> > 
> > Please have a play and let me know how you get on.
> > 
> > Diff attached, because it's >33K lines :)
> > 
> 
> Thanks for update! Just tested locally.
> 
> Slava Voronzoff had asked to confirm, via telegram group, that some
> texlive_texmf port tries to remvoe /usr/local/bin.
> 
> I'd like to confirm that removing texlive_texmf-minimal-2024 leads to
> 
>   Error deleting directory /usr/local/bin: Directory not empty

There are bogus "bin/" entries in a couple of PLISTs.

Also I'm not 100% sure but I think the "updating" of @conflict markers
goes too far - these really only want to be listed when there are actual
conflicts (in some cases, e.g. share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/etoolbox,
share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/everyshi, share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/xpatch,
bin/eptex, they are needed). Problem with over-listing @conflicts is
that pkg_add has to merge the updates together - and if there's one
set of ports in the tree where this is a problem (for disk use on
updates) that's texlive.