Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 22:58:58 +0200 From: "Julian Stacey <jhs@freebsd.org>" <jhs@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> To: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Cc: fenner@parc.xerox.com, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xfig and transfig Message-ID: <199508132058.WAA07502@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 13 Aug 1995 11:53:56 %2B0200." <199508130953.CAA06029@silvia.HIP.Berkeley.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> You are right. I'd rather have a maximal list of dependencies than a > minimal list. Perhaps that's it ! it's really just personal preference for or against, depending whether the compiler machine has infinite space, & whether cries of `Bloat' are to one's personal taste :-) a bit like vi V emacs, or C formatting styles, OK, lets have a new pseudo thing like EXEC_DEPENDS perhaps EXEC_RECCOMENDED That will alllow for both ends of the spectrum, with both ends also having full automatic compilation. EG I can make a damn good case for instance that ghostview is Not necessary for Hylafax (even though I personally happen to use ghostview for each fax I get :-) (anyone who doesnt undesrtand this should read the hylafax-in- remote-server-with forwarding mode docs before challenging that :-) Julian S
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508132058.WAA07502>