Date: Fri, 08 Mar 1996 20:03:59 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@jhome.DIALix.COM> To: torstenb@tlk.com Cc: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami), coredump@nervosa.com, CVS-committers@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-all@freefall.freebsd.org, cvs-ports@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/devel/libwww - Imported sources Message-ID: <199603081204.UAA13192@jhome.DIALix.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 08 Mar 1996 12:28:33 %2B0100." <m0tv0LZ-00021vC@solar.tlk.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Satoshi Asami wrote: > >> * I don't think it makes much sense to put libwww into the www >> * directory because its useless for joe-average-user. It does not >> * contain any executables (like tiff or jpeg for example)... >> >> Um, whether it's useful for Joe FreeBSD user is not an issue here. We >> never classified ports by skill level. :) > >I meant: it's only usefull for people who want to develop a www application >with this particular library. > >autoconf, bcc, bison and so on are not useful for "Joe FreeBSD user" - that's >why they are in the "devel" directory... > > -tb And what happens when a program is written that uses this library comes in as a port? You'd have to install the "developemnt" library in order to use the final finished program? Take ports/www/comline for example.. It uses libwww-4.0D, and it's not a development tool. It's currently downloading and building it's own version of libwww-4.0D. IMO, libwww should be in ports/www, and ports/www/comline should use it (if possible) rather than statically compiling in "yet another" copy of the code. Cheers, -Peter
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603081204.UAA13192>