On 21 Jun 1999, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> > I don't know either... but what if we make a mix between b) and c) add a
> > seperate ns-flash package, and let only the communicator package depend on
> > it?
> please, no.  navigator and communicator are already huge, don't burden
> their installation with _even more_ bits.

Um, I intended to say it the other way round: let ns-flash only depend on
communicator, so "navigator" remains slim, and communicator gets all the
extra bits. 


> > btw, "netscape" would come in handy as a meta-package, that installs
> > everything (ns-flash, communicator, navigator).
> Actually, this is kinda bogus.  if you have communicator, you don't
> really need navigator.

That's ok with me.


 - Hubert

-- 
NetBSD - Better for your uptime than Viagra