Hey Stuart, Jeremie,

Thanks for the input/comments on this. Sorry I haven't had time to chime in
until now.

The extra bin/ entries are easily fixed. No problem there.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 07:16:14PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 05:23:32PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > > > Also I'm not 100% sure but I think the "updating" of @conflict markers

About these conflict markers. It was my understanding that they are the way
they are for two similar, but related, reasons:

 - a) to prevent texmf subsets from different texlive years from being
      installed simultaneously, especially during updates. e.g. you can't mix
      texmf packages from TL23 and TL24. Files could conflict due to upstream
      tex package dependency changes between different versions of tex live.

 - b) for when files are moved from one OpenBSD texmf package to another, by
      us. This typically happens when someone asks to put another tex package
      into the buildset. Without strict conflict markers, i.e. with a specific
      REVISION, the update doesn't work. That's caught me out in the past.

(There's a comment in texmf/Makefile that discusses the latter)

Am I mistaken?

> > > pbuild /usr/ports/print/texlive$ cvs diff 2>/dev/null | grep -e '^Index.*pkg/PLIST-' -e '^+@conflict '
> > > Index: base/pkg/PLIST-main
> > > Index: texmf/pkg/PLIST-buildset
> > > +@conflict texlive_texmf-main-<2024
> > 
> > I think that should be texlive_texmf-minimal-<2024 (the subpackage
> > extension doesn't match the PKGNAME, it confused me a few times when
> > I was reading the diff!).

Yep, that's a typo. Thanks for pointing that out.

Cheers

-- 
Best Regards
Edd Barrett

https://www.theunixzoo.co.uk