Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:04:25 +0100 (BST) From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: remove groff from base? Message-ID: <201209071204.q87C4P9M046824@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
textproc/groff is more up to date and more complete than the src version, for obvious reasons. I use groff for document preparation, so need the ports version. I don't mind having the two versions, just have to remember to use -M man switch, or set the PATH accordingly. However, I wonder, with all the talk about some tools better kept in ports rather than in base (e.g. pkg), is it perhaps better to remove groff from base completely? The bsdinstall (I haven't used it yet myself, haven't done a fresh install for a while) could still offer to install the man pages, but warn the user that textproc/groff must be installed. On the other hand, groff depends directly on 29 other ports, so maybe it's a lot to ask from a user - if something is wrong with the ports tree, the user might end up with no man pages, which is bad. Anyway, for me, the more tools are moved to ports - the better. I happen to use mostly older, slower boxes, so buildworld time is an issue. Anton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201209071204.q87C4P9M046824>