There is an updated pull request by fosslinux against master on the void-packages repository

https://github.com/fosslinux/void-packages texlive-2023
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/47130

Texlive 2023
<!-- Uncomment relevant sections and delete options which are not applicable -->

#### Testing the changes
- I tested the changes in this PR: **yes**

<!--
#### New package
- This new package conforms to the [package requirements](https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#package-requirements): **YES**|**NO**
-->

<!-- Note: If the build is likely to take more than 2 hours, please add ci skip tag as described in
https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#continuous-integration
and test at least one native build and, if supported, at least one cross build.
Ignore this section if this PR is not skipping CI.
-->

#### Local build testing
- I built this PR locally for my native architecture, x86_64
- I built this PR locally for these architectures (if supported. mark crossbuilds):
  - [x] aarch64-musl
  - [x] armv7l
  - [x] armv6l-musl


<strike>A few consideration's I'm 100% sure about.

1. I'm not certain about our current ownerships - a lot of things from `texmf-dist` come from the texlive package, whereas most other distributions appear to have the primary texlive package as compiled binaries-only and then place all the `texmf-dist` binaries symlinked to scripts in their texlive-core package (obviously different names but same idea). Should we be doing this?
2. What do I do about the ppc64 patches, should they be dropped or left?</strike>
*all considered now*

A patch file from https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/pull/47130.patch is attached