Subject: Re: gimp depends on emacs?
To: Matthias Scheler <email@example.com>
From: Berndt Josef Wulf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/03/1999 23:55:39
Matthias Scheler wrote
> In article <199905022222.HAA02801@dingo.ping.net.au>,
> Berndt Josef Wulf <email@example.com> writes:
> > does someone know why emacs is needed when building gimp? Is it because
> > of the docs?
> Yes, exactly.
> > I managed to build gimp without emacs with only two warning messages
> > during package registration.
> There were caused by documentation files which were not built because
> "emacs" is missing.
Yep, I've commented out emacs in top Makefile, created an empty
pdb_dump.texi file and of it went... Of course, I am now missing two doc
files, but this is the least of my concerns :)
Wouldn't it be more efficient to include the missing files with the patches
avoiding to have to download and build emacs just for the sake of creating
two doc files? Besides preserving disk-space, it will save a lot of download
time, bandwidth and money, especially who have to use a standard modem
and pay an ISP to connect to the internet.
> > Otherwise it appears to work fine and it seems to be such a waste of
> > resources in installing emacs.
> "gimp" is a big monster package with or without requiring "emacs".
Agree, but emacs is almost a magnitude of order bigger than gimp.
Name : Berndt Josef Wulf
E-Mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Sysinfo : DEC AXPpci33+, NetBSD-1.3.3