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 :(
> 
> 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.

This is rubbish, as I put forward my case and offered a possible 
solution by including the missing files with the patches in order to 
avoid emacs.

I didn't argue whether I like or dislike emacs, rather questioned if there was
a need for it in order to build gimp on NetBSD.

> 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.
> 
> > 	5.) make install 
> > 	   ignore the 2 warning messages during the registration of
> > 	   the package due to the missing files.
> 
> Great, really great.
> 
> > 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.

Yes it is an ulgy hack, but it serves the purpose of avoiding to
download a package for which a common user would take 60+ minutes
with a 28k modem.

No, it doesn't break the creation of the binaries as I've built gimp
by this method and used it since. 



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