Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 15:04:59 +0200 From: "Julian Stacey <jhs@freebsd.org>" <jhs@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> To: Bill Fenner <fenner@parc.xerox.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: xfig and transfig Message-ID: <199508111305.PAA04691@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 11 Aug 1995 02:24:02 %2B0200." <95Aug10.172411pdt.177475@crevenia.parc.xerox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I suspect that the xfig package should depend on transfig; it's pretty > confusing to install xfig but still not be able to print anything... I disagree, as I believe we should specify minimal rather than maximal sets of EXEC_DEPENDS. EXEC_DEPENDS forces a pre make before the current port, so we should be conservative in what we force potentially small systems to pre-compile. I have used xfig without ever wanting to print the result. I converted (with xv I think) to gif, & put the result on the web, when later I did want to print, I used chimera to save the page to postscript, then used ghostscript; I never went near transfig (in fact never read the manual till you mentioned it ... thanks :-) A bad example of too liberal use of EXEC_DEPENDS is comms/hylafax/Makefile EXEC_DEPENDS+= ghostview While I personally use ghostview, it is by no means necessary to hylafax, so pre-compilation should not be forced, though it currently is, (I've checked this, am responsible for it, & have plans to correct it). Julian S
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508111305.PAA04691>