Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 21:18:25 +0200 (MET DST) From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@klemm.gtn.com> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com>, 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: <Pine.BSI.3.95.960807211135.1769B-100000@klemm.gtn.com> In-Reply-To: <8675.839248138@time.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 5 Aug 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > 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. That sound's reasonable. But one might argue, that a good login environment could also be done by the configure scripts in the ports collection. Another thing is, that fvwm is certainly a nice, but not the only window manager, that's available for free. So what, if th user decides to use afterstep, then the .fvwmrc file is useless. Although I agree with you in most points, Jordan, I think, that this should move into ports. And I think xditview should stay, since FreeBSD uses groff. We shouldn't split the package or make a port of the complete groff package. But I'd vote for keeping groff in the source tree, but then complete. -- andreas@klemm.gtn.com /\/\___ Wiechers & Partner Datentechnik GmbH Andreas Klemm ___/\/\/ Support Unix -- andreas.klemm@wup.de pgp p-key http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html >>> powered by <<< ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/system/Printing/aps-491.tgz >>> FreeBSD <<<
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.95.960807211135.1769B-100000>