On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Predrag Punosevac
<punosevac@math.arizona.edu> wrote:
quoted text
> One could also argue that much finer TeXLive port could have been done as
> certain parts of TeXLive experience rapid
> development.

I think that would be making work for the sake of it. TeXLive release
once a year, so thats when  I will make ports. One could commit thier
entire life to maintaining TeXLive in a granular fashion, but I don't
have time or motivation to do so.

TeXLive is not easy to manage. It took me the best part of half a year
to understand the various mechanisms (maps, formats, pools etc.) and
patch away parts of the builld system that prevented DESTDIR to be
used properly. I have a ruby script which I use to split down the
texmf tree into subsets which I have re-written from scratch this year
because the internal tex database format changed from XML to text
(which is a good thing).

I will be breaking texlive down slightly more this year in an attempt
to remove the ruby/imagemagick deps for non-conTeXt users, and the
structure of the port may change from SUBDIR, to something else.

I hope this gives you an insight.

-- 

Best Regards

Edd

http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett