gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:34:23PM -0400, thelarsons3@cox.net wrote:
> Ahem:

Thanks for all this explanation.  Good stuff!

> The fonts themselves are not, necessarily, freely redistributable.

I've got a couple free TT fonts, and there are the ones in the package 
system.

>> I hope I don't need to compile anything, because my build box
>> became nonresponsive (to the network) within the past few days, so
>> I don't know when I'll be able to do that again.
> 
> Um. Well, pkgsrc does "build" things. You could use binary packages,
> of course. If memory serves, releng builds those too periodically.

I can find packages built in the 1.6.x days, and 3.0 stuff, but nothing 
in between.  I don't know exactly what issues (if any) are caused by 
using packages built on a system later than yours.  As I mentioned, I 
run 2.1.  I'm still using some 1.6.x binaries, too.  Can I safely use 
3.0 packages on a 2.1 system?

> But... is there really some reason not to have a C compiler and
> pkgsrc on the target system?

Disk is too small to do this realistically.  Just expanding pkgsrc would 
fill it up.  That's why I put two of my biggest disks in the fastest 
machine for building stuff - to give myself lots of 2.1-built packages 
for the other machines in my gallery.  :)  Then those other machines 
don't waste precious space, but can hold just the things they'll 
actually be using.

>> Fortunately I got the last batch of packages copied to my webserver
>> before this happened.
> 
> Well, there you go then.

Unfortunately I haven't built hardly any font-related packages.  :(

Tim

-- 
Tim & Alethea
christtrek.org