On Sun, 7 Aug 2022 at 01:54, Greg Troxel wrote
>
> David Brownlee writes:
>
> > In short - the change is small, relatively safe, should not result in
> > any difference in final state for the general case where someone
> > installs a package which uses share/applications/mimeinfo.cache, and
> > c
David Brownlee writes:
> In short - the change is small, relatively safe, should not result in
> any difference in final state for the general case where someone
> installs a package which uses share/applications/mimeinfo.cache, and
> could significantly benefit some people building a small set
On Sat, 6 Aug 2022 at 16:06, Greg Troxel wrote:
> [pmc hat firmly off]
>
> David Brownlee writes:
>
> > On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:38, Vitaly Shevtsov wrote:
> >> Can desktop-file-utils be optional for xterm? Because this dependence
> >> requires heavy glib2 and it seems removing it from x11/xter
[pmc hat firmly off]
David Brownlee writes:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:38, Vitaly Shevtsov wrote:
>> Can desktop-file-utils be optional for xterm? Because this dependence
>> requires heavy glib2 and it seems removing it from x11/xterm/Makefile
>> has no side effects.
One question is how popu
I don't agree that glib2 is heavy, it's about the same size as xlib.
This is the kind of problem where if you're building your own packages,
it's easy to make the modification yourself if you care enough.
There isn't much reason to reduce the usefulness of packages by default.
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 18:38, Vitaly Shevtsov wrote:
> Can desktop-file-utils be optional for xterm? Because this dependence
> requires heavy glib2 and it seems removing it from x11/xterm/Makefile
> has no side effects.
There are probably two obvious approaches to this.
The simpler would be to a
Hello!
Can desktop-file-utils be optional for xterm? Because this dependence
requires heavy glib2 and it seems removing it from x11/xterm/Makefile
has no side effects.
Thanks
