Address comments.

In D23579#518954, @mat wrote:

Is the sddm.conf file just gone?

In D23300#517570, @prj_rootwyrm.com wrote:

if anyone knows how I can say "aarch64 as long as it's not qemu" that would be very helpful. Users on qemu should expect this port to NOT build, while users on native arm should have no issues.

Restore some patches.

Stupid me missed some patches. Stand clear.

Fix some patches also touched by post-path.

Bump.

Suggestions by Mikael Urankar.

Address comments.

Do we really need those echos in the script? AFAIK, java/javavmwrapper does basically the same thing, but do it silently.

Address comments

• mandoc -Tlint clean.
• igor complains about date being not today (line 28) . Should I change it?

• Address comments.
• Add gpart bootcode command invocation into UFS example.

Bump.

Bump.

Bump.

• Patch config.h entries too. Submitted by Artyom Davidov <ard_1@mail.ru>

• And bump port revision.

Add prefix to OpenBLAS headers with common names (like config.h or common.h).

Sorry for forgetting about this. I didn't added it to my TODO list.

The current port doesn't provide libtensorflow.so, which is required for Haskell bindings, but it's better to build upon that, rather that this solution, which requires repackaging.

Thanks for your submission, and sorry for this taking so long.

In D16623#459872, @uzsolt_uzsolt.hu wrote:

In D16623#459817, @arrowd wrote:

Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale for this package split?

The "old" texlive-texmf installed size is about 1.35GiB without any documentation - it's plus 1.58GiB so they're about 3GiB and for example I don't use many-many (useful) packages (styles, classes, fonts, etc.).
I think the (new) texlive-texmf-publishers (for example) is needed only some people so it would be about 230MiB unnecessary files for many people. For my daily work I need only 10 texlive-texmf-* from all 36 (about one third). So I (and other texlive-users too) need install only the necessary packages (plus some similar) - save storage, bandwidth,... The test of texmf-dependent packages would be faster because doesn't need unpack and repack (into .txz) the whole texmf-tree.
I tried split the texmf-packages by their target (functionality) - I hope it's almost right (based on ArchLinux's splits: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=texlive) but it's sure it isn't perfect.
Do you think isn't useful?

Looks good to me. If no one objects, I'll commit this after giving it a run in poudriere.

Too many bugs, postponing this for later.

Does that mean I can commit this myself, despite having commit bit for ports only?