On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 08:49:51AM -0400, Decklin Foster wrote: > Hans Ekbrand writes: > > > This seems like a mistake, since the description of the package has > > not changed, and explictly says that the lite version is built without > > freetype support. > > Someone requested Xft, I believe, but I have no idea why GTK is in > there; that is definitely a mistake. (I don't use -lite myself.) > > I've been considering just building two packages, one with all useful > options and one ideally pared down to close to where we were in etch. > There's not much meaningful difference between rxvt-unicode and > rxvt-unicode-ml anymore. Do you think this would be good?
1. I have never used anything but rxvt-unicode-lite, so I have no opinion on the differences between rxvt-unicode vs rxvt-unicode-ml. 2. Personally, I have Xft installed on all my systems anyway, so I wouldn't mind too much. But on the other hand, I only use bitmapped fonts in the console, and I think that those who want Xft can install rxvt-unicode. To sum up my opinion, keep three packages, and keep Xft out of -lite. -- Hans Ekbrand (http://sociologi.cjb.net) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
