Subject: Re: To PR or not to PR, that is the question.
To: Marc Recht <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
Date: 05/19/2004 17:03:19
On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:15:15 +0200
Marc Recht <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > it on my system. Doxygen now requires graphviz in order to
> > build. I don't really need graphviz, and the license is just too
> > long to read carefully when I don't really want to use graphviz
> > at all.
> I added it since the install page sounded like it'd need it. I just re-read
> it and it rather states "To take full advantage of doxygen's features..".
> > Can this be made optional, or can the package be split as the
> > emacs is split into emacs and emacs-nox11? Or is this too
> > much of a corner-case to justify something like that?
> It looks like the information (graphviz yes/no, path to graphviz and so on)
> is compiled directly into the binary. So, the only thing we could do would
> be a doxygen and doxygen-nographiz pkg or something like that if we want
> binary packages without the graphviz dependency. The question is now: what
> about TeX and ghostscript?
They look "different" to me. The later (tex and gs) are free, but graphviz
has a non-free license, which has to be manually accepted. So I think it
could be good to have graphviz excluded in some way, but still having an
almost full-featured package (i.e., with tex and gs).
Julio M. Merino Vidal <email@example.com>
The NetBSD Project - http://www.NetBSD.org/