Subject: Re: gimp depends on emacs?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Berndt Josef Wulf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/04/1999 01:14:41
Hubert Feyrer wrote
> On Mon, 3 May 1999, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> > 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.
> If you're concerned about download time, bandwidth, money and compilation
> time, why don't you just use binary packages then? Emacs is needed for
> building only, and it won't fill your disk if you install from binary
This isn't the answer I was looking for. You may as well just replied
saying "Why don't you buy a NetBSD CD?". I won't get into this too much
Back to the issue... downloading the binary package would only save
compilation time - nothing else - full stop.
The binary package is still double the size of the sources and
hence downloading the source code is the most efficient way of getting the
package and to clear things up here - I've access to a fast link
and was not pleading for myself, but for those who don't have this
I believe that it wouldn't make much of a difference to the maintainer of
emacs to include the missing docs and delete emacs out of the top
Have a nice day...
Name : Berndt Josef Wulf
E-Mail : email@example.com
Sysinfo : DEC AXPpci33+, NetBSD-1.3.3