#13348 closed defect (fixed)
texlive patches are executable
| Reported by: | master@… | Owned by: | milosh@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Low | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | 1.5.2 |
| Keywords: | TeX | Cc: | |
| Port: |
Description
Dear Emmanuel,
there is no reason for patch files to have executable bit set, but about 2/3 of them do have it turned on. It may affect UNIX file managers, that treat such files like scripts - default action is execute, other color in file list etc.
Sincerely, Michail
PS.
Is there any reason to prefer the port over installing TeXLive directly?
AFAIK TeXLive people are redoing their own package management for TeXLive 2008 and thus the existing port has little chance to serve as a basis for the future one.
Change History (4)
comment:1 Changed 17 years ago by nox@…
| Cc: | milosh@… removed |
|---|---|
| Owner: | changed from macports-dev@… to milosh@… |
comment:2 Changed 17 years ago by milosh@…
| Status: | new → assigned |
|---|
comment:3 Changed 17 years ago by milosh@…
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → closed |
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.
I'm going to modify the rights on the patches. (I did not change the rights after checkouting them).
PS: From a user point of view, I find that doing 'port install texlive' is easier than downloading the MacTeX iso and installing it. More when it will be upgraded, it will be better to 'port upgrade texlive' than to uninstall, downloading the new iso, installing... From a maintainer point of view, packages that depend on latex are better off requiring a port than trying to take into account all tex distributions and the different ways they install on different architectures.