Subject: Re: lightweight groff package?
To: Jeremy C. Reed <email@example.com>
From: Berndt Josef Wulf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/20/2003 19:11:08
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 05:28 pm, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> Has anyone made (or interested in working on) a lightweight groff
> I need a groff with man (and mandoc) macros (with support for console
> textproc/groff has dependencies on netpbm, psutils, and ghostscript. I'd
> like to have a groff-light that doesn't depend on these.
> (On a related note, I was working on cawf and its mandoc macros to read
> NetBSD's manual pages. If anyone speaks roff and is interested in a small
> groff alternative, see cawf in pkgsrc-wip and email me for my custom
> Jeremy C. Reed
let me add a comment here...
There are many packages overloaded with features that are deemed optional by
the originating software authors/developers. In some cases, packages have
been patched beyond recognition to suit the needs of the package maintainer.
Why not add only those dependencies that are required to buld and run the
package and leave optional dependencies to the user?