Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:45:03 -0800 From: Charlie Kester <corky1951@comcast.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updating Claws-Mail Message-ID: <20101213194503.GJ11485@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <4D067272.2040404@FreeBSD.org> References: <20101211070156.414b5760@seibercom.net> <AANLkTikmh9XaQPxYnG8hGw9jX-3tOx0e_LYhef3pHEAD@mail.gmail.com> <20101211212624.0000067c@unknown> <20101212215431.2b2948ba@o2.pl> <20101212232351.70e145a7@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20101213103125.00002af7@unknown> <20101213151239.79528759@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20101213170628.0000695f@unknown> <4D067272.2040404@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon 13 Dec 2010 at 11:22:26 PST Doug Barton wrote: > >I think some ports have split the docs into their own port, e.g., >gimp. Is that a reasonable approach here? The fact that a lot of the >gnome stuff A) makes docs by default, B) with no option to turn it >off, which C) pulls in a ton of docbook and other deps; is not >something I'm fond of, and would prefer to not see repeated >elsewhere. :) Are the upstream authors resisting the idea of including pre-built docs in their tarballs? Is it that they're making some system-dependent tweaks at install time?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101213194503.GJ11485>