On 3 May 1999, Matthias Scheler wrote:

# In article <199905032243.IAA06639@dingo.ping.net.au>,
# 	Berndt Josef Wulf <wulf@ping.net.au> writes:
# > This is a childish and not very constructive response which I wouldn't
# > have expected on this list :(

Agreed.

# 
# I didn't see any constructive argument by you in this whole thread.
# I-don't-like-emacs-and-I-don't-want-to-download-it is no reason for
# creating an incomplete package.

It makes a large difference to those of us with slow links.  I
would have appreciated it had I not needed to build bloatmacs.
Don't get me wrong -- it's kind of a cool editor, but it is big
and slow and I don't have the horsepower to support it in a usable
fashion.  "Buy a better machine" is not an option, for I have zero
budget.

# 
# If you don't want to install the toolchain required for a package you
# have three options:
# 
# 1.) Use a binary package.
# 2.) Supply a better toolchain.
# 3.) Don't use the package.

4.) Hack YOUR OWN VERSION of pkgsrc to deal with it.  There's nothing
wrong with that.

# > It wouldn't heard to mention this procedure in the README file and have
# > the users to decide whether it is worth the effort downloading emacs.
# 
# Describe an ugly hack which will definitely break the creation of the
# binary package? If this is going to happen it's probably time to look
# for a new operating system.

No, if this is going to happen, it's  the decision of the individual
user building the package.

The package system is good, but not perfect, but it's good, but...

Perhaps we should inform the NetBSD pkg maintainer for Gimp and/or
the GNU maintainers that requiring emacs just to install the Gimp
falls under the "egregious hack" category which requires an egregious
hack just to circumvent something that shouldn't be happening in
the first place.

Thank you, Berndt, for posting the workaround.

# -- 
# Matthias Scheler                                http://home.owl.de/~tron/

				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: Groovy Baby!