Matthias Scheler wrote
> 
> In article <199905022222.HAA02801@dingo.ping.net.au>,
> 	Berndt Josef Wulf <wulf@ping.net.au> writes:
> > does someone know why emacs is needed when building gimp? Is it because
> > of the docs? 
> 
> Yes, exactly.
> 
> > I managed to build gimp without emacs with only two warning messages
> > during package registration.
> 
> There were caused by documentation files which were not built because
> "emacs" is missing.

Yep, I've commented out emacs in top Makefile, created an empty
pdb_dump.texi file and of it went... Of course, I am now missing two doc
files, but this is the least of my concerns :)

Wouldn't it be more efficient to include the missing files with the patches
avoiding to have to download and build emacs just for the sake of creating
two doc files? Besides preserving disk-space, it will save a lot of download
time, bandwidth and money, especially who have to use a standard modem
and pay an ISP to connect to the internet.

> > Otherwise it appears to work fine and it seems to be such a waste of
> > resources in installing emacs.
> 
> "gimp" is a big monster package with or without requiring "emacs".

Agree, but emacs is almost a magnitude of order bigger than gimp.

Please consider....

cheerio Berndt
-- 
Name	: Berndt Josef Wulf
E-Mail	: wulf@ping.net.au
Sysinfo	: DEC AXPpci33+, NetBSD-1.3.3