Date: 05 Aug 1996 14:35:22 +0100 From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>, phk@critter.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp), pst@freefall.freebsd.org, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-gnu@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/gnu/usr.bin/groff/xditview ... Message-ID: <57zq4adkdh.fsf@elsevier.co.uk> In-Reply-To: "Jordan K. Hubbard"'s message of Mon, 05 Aug 1996 05:28:58 -0700 References: <8675.839248138@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> writes: > I think we're arguing apples and doorknobs here. A scattering of > reasonable dotfiles for the purpose of making a new user's environment > a little nicer and, at worst, ignored if unused is not the same as > code which is essentially uncompilable in our tree without the > addition of another major component which we do not provide by > default. I don't specifically see a problem with X code being in the tree as long as it doesn't *require* X being installed to build. Haven't seen the code yet but Paul's commit suggested that the code simply did nothing if X wasn't installed. As for dot files, why can't they be installed by the package that uses them rather than be in the main sources? We could add some sample dot files to the package and maintain them in the ports area. -- Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd. (Netcraft Ltd. contractor) Elsevier Science TIS online journal project. Email: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?57zq4adkdh.fsf>