Am 28.03.2010, 22:16 Uhr, schrieb Hiroki Sato:
Peter Olsson <[email protected]> wrote
in <1269804756.2864.94.ca...@x61s>:
po> I added no options to the configs that were displayed, just removed
some
po> (e.g. X11 from ghostscript IIRC). I'm not so concerned with the time
po> that passed, I'm just shocked by the number of ports that got
installed.
po>
po> I'm glad this was a test install, I won't install en-freebsd-doc
again.
po> I suggest a big warning sign on the installation page which
recommends
po> installing en-freebsd-doc. Anyway, no worries and keep up the very
good
po> work you do with FreeBSD.
This is because building the documentation set needs a bunch of
toolchains. If you want this but not want to install the toolchains,
install it by using the corresponding packages.
If I understand Peter's message correctly, he was _surprised_ (astonished)
that he needed the somewhat extensive docproj toolchain to rebuild (and it
is huge, since it pulls tex in which you don't want to pull through a v.92
or GPRS modem ;)).
His suggestion would be that we explicitly *warn* that ??-freebsd-doc
packages require docproj and its many dependencies for a rebuild and
suggest that those who don't want those dependencies upgrade the package,
as you suggest.
I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that would be, at least I'd
suggest that Peter files a problem-report (send-pr or online) to propose
such a warning (that is so that this discussion doesn't get lost).
--
Matthias Andree
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
