matthew green wrote:

>   
>   matthew green <mrg@eterna.com.au> writes:
>   >     	Would you object to it being in a separate set which is not
>   >     	installed by default?
>   >
>   >
>   > considering that it's extra build time for everyone, yeah, i would
>   > object..
>   
>   You can always do MKHTML=no and not suffer the build time penalty...
>
>
>but why should everyone have to do this when they aren't going to
>be used?  i'm all for MKHTML=yes working fine.  but there is no
>good reason that a base netbsd install or build should do them.
>
>
>.mrg.
>  
>

I don't use these either, and I build a lot myself, but I can definitely 
see how it would be useful to provide a separate HTML man page set with 
releases.  I'd suggest defaulting MKHTML to no, and switching it to yes 
for release builds, but then problems with it won't necessarily get 
caught in a reasonable amount of time.  For myself, and assuming the 
flist setups are properly fixed to handle both the yes and no cases, I'd 
be willing to set MKHTML to no myself for those times when shaving every 
extra minute off a build is important... (like I already do with some of 
the other switches).

My vote (assuming I had one, which I don't, but... :)  would be to 
provide separate man, catman, and html tarballs by default.  I'm 
perfectly capable of switching them off when it matters.

+j