Subject: Re: gimp depends on emacs?
To: Matthias Scheler <email@example.com>
From: Jim Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/04/1999 00:18:18
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 3 May 1999, Matthias Scheler wrote:
>Supplying a replacement tool to generate these files would do the same
>without adding any redundant files. I was never NetBSD's method to go
>for the quick and dirty hack.
So including the files is redundant, but writing a tool to auto-generate
files whose contents are known in advance is not? Defend that.
>So all you emacs haters stop complaining and start working.
What does loving or hating emacs have to do with whether I want a
package to have to depend on a much larger package to generate files
whose contents are known in advance?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----