Subject: Re: lightweight groff package?
To: Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Berndt Josef Wulf <email@example.com>
Date: 08/21/2003 19:56:00
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 07:08 pm, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> > This is only one side of the coin, because on the other hand it forces
> > people to download and install mega-packages such as ghostscript, TeX
> > etc. pp., although they may never use the functionality of that package.
> What packages, when you enable multibyte characters, force you to
> download and install mega-packages?
> My argument is that you can add very useful stuff that *doesn't* require
> much in the way of extra packages. (Typically, the multinational stuff
> requires only libiconv, which is fairly small.) So unless you can point
> out the "megapackages" that doing this would add, there's no reason, by
> your argument, not to add these features. (Unless you have some reason
> other than just "downloading an installing megapackages.")
When I said "mega" I meant packages large in size such as TeX and ghostscript,
these where just examples that I came across in the past.
To make things worst, buildlink2 forces users to stay uprest at a bleeding
edge when updating packages since it usually referes to dependencies that
pull-in the current versions on, whereas the DEPENDS variable gives
maintainers the freedom to set the revision level of the dependencies that
may not neccessarily reflect the current revision level of that package.