Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2025 12:46:16 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyAyODIxMjFdIHRleHRwcm9jL2xhY2hlY2s6IHVwZGF0ZSAx?= =?UTF-8?B?LjI2IOKGkiAxLjMwLCB0YWtlIG1haW50YWluZXJzaGlw?= Message-ID: <bug-282121-7788-nqJLTX36gl@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-282121-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-282121-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D282121 --- Comment #11 from Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa <fernape@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to =C3=84lven from comment #7) Yes. My main point is that this takes the same huge source than textlive-base ju= st to extract one program. It is true however that at install time, it will ta= ke less disk space, but not that it is important these days. At some point, this should be a subpackage. While we get there, I think we = can live with textlive-base which installs more utilities that play well togeth= er with lacheck. I honestly don't see many use cases in which someone might wa= nt lacheck and *not* textlive-base. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-282121-7788-nqJLTX36gl>