Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:07:51 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: uqs@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC vgrind in base (and buildworld) Message-ID: <4D3C2827.2000704@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <20110121222008.GB65811@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <20110120201740.GE24444@acme.spoerlein.net> <20110121222008.GB65811@acme.spoerlein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/21/11 11:20 PM, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > On Thu, 20.01.2011 at 21:17:40 +0100, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Currently our buildworld relies on groff(1) and vgrind(1) being present >> in the host system. I have a patch ready that at least makes sure these >> are built during bootstrap-tools and completes the WITHOUT_GROFF flag. >> >> vgrind(1) is only used for two papers under share/doc and we could >> easily expand the results and commit them to svn directly, alleviating >> the need to run vgrind(1) during buildworld. >> >> OTOH, there are much more useful tools to vgrind(1) for source code >> formatting. So do we still have vgrind(1) users out there? >> >> Regards, >> Uli > > [trying to get this thread back on track] > > Does anyone actually care about vgrind in base? Will people be angry if > I unroll the 2 cases where it is used under share/doc? > > Regards, > Uli > Hi Ulrich, I think I'm speaking for a reasonable amount of people when I say: I have no idea what vgrind is used for to begin with. If you can safely and easily get us rid of a binary that's only used for 2 small things when building the world, I'm all for it. The less clutter, the better :) Regards, -- Dam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D3C2827.2000704>