On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 11:07:52AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian> Most puzzling to me seems to be your position on groff. It's clear > Ian> that if you install groff the base code does indeed work. But you're > Ian> saying that there should be no non-working binaries, and if you > Ian> install groff without xlib6g you get a non-working binary (and indeed > Ian> there's no alternative sensible ditroff previewer). I was expecting > Ian> you to say that gxditview should be broken out of groff, too. > > Strawman. The situation is not as you describe; it seems that > groff suggests groff-x11, and lets see here:
Ian is referring to the version in stable, where gxditview was indeed part of groff. I split the groff package for other reasons (primarily removing large components that few people use from the base system) about a year ago, forming groff-base and groff. At that point, gxditview became a much more significant part of the groff binary package in relative terms, and I felt that a stronger relationship than 'Suggests' was appropriate. However, adding that to groff would have meant that people upgrading from a potato base system would have found themselves prompted to install X, which didn't seem ideal to me. I'm inclined to merge groff-x11 back into groff after woody. I haven't yet decided what relationship groff should then declare on XFree86, but I'd imagine that the Committee's decision here will be relevant. [Hoping to provide useful information here; excuse me for intruding.] -- Colin Watson (groff maintainer) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
