Subject: Re: gimp depends on emacs?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Matthias Scheler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/03/1999 23:12:04
In article <199905032243.IAA06639@dingo.ping.net.au>,
Berndt Josef Wulf <email@example.com> writes:
> This is a childish and not very constructive response which I wouldn't
> have expected on this list :(
I didn't see any constructive argument by you in this whole thread.
I-don't-like-emacs-and-I-don't-want-to-download-it is no reason for
creating an incomplete package.
If you don't want to install the toolchain required for a package you
have three options:
1.) Use a binary package.
2.) Supply a better toolchain.
3.) Don't use the package.
> 5.) make install
> ignore the 2 warning messages during the registration of
> the package due to the missing files.
Great, really great.
> It wouldn't heard to mention this procedure in the README file and have
> the users to decide whether it is worth the effort downloading emacs.
Describe an ugly hack which will definitely break the creation of the
binary package? If this is going to happen it's probably time to look
for a new operating system.
Matthias Scheler http://home.owl.de/~tron/