Subject: Re: Can we trim the fat from gcc3, please?
To: Jeremy C. Reed <>
From: Frederick Bruckman <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 06/17/2003 15:10:04
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:

> In another posting, fredb says "My idea to strip out Java, however has
> been shot down". Is this idea really dead?
> (I want a smaller package for my systems with little space.)

About the only idea that would seem to please (almost) everybody, is
to make the no-java optional. That's not entirely trivial however,
because of the "{@exec,@unexec} install-info ..." in the PLIST's. I'm
sure that could be done, but it's still not good for me, because I'd
feel to obligated to test all, or at least many, of the variations,
and I just don't have the time to do that.

It's especially vexing, to me, that the package builds easily out of
the box, while pkgsrc and buildlink cause it to pick up extra
dependencies in $LOCALBASE, contrary to buildlink's stated purpose.
So I'm dropping this ball, if anyone else wants to pick it up.