On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> people seem happy with this, so i'll have the release team do a test build and
> see how it goes.
++
If any of the system packages are going to pull in texinfo then it
really should have a use flag for the perl-requiring parts. Otherwise
w
On Sunday 31 March 2013 01:59:52 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> it'd be simpler if we just dropped it altogether from @system. if people
> want `info`, they can `emerge` it themselves. if packages want
> `makeinfo`, they can DEPEND on it -- few fall into this category (<100 by
> a rough survey of random
On 31/03/2013 07:59, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> it'd be simpler if we just dropped it altogether from @system. if people
> want
> `info`, they can `emerge` it themselves. if packages want `makeinfo`, they
> can DEPEND on it -- few fall into this category (<100 by a rough survey of
> random Gento
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> the new texinfo-5.x series has rewritten makeinfo in perl. the main `info`
> program is still in pure C.
>
> when it comes to packages installing .info pages, it's largely limited to the
> GNU projects as the format has never really caught
On 03/31/2013 01:59 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
personally, i've never found info pages usable.
ditto.
it'd be simpler if we just dropped it altogether from @system. if people want
`info`, they can `emerge` it themselves. if packages want `makeinfo`, they
can DEPEND on it -- few fall into th
the new texinfo-5.x series has rewritten makeinfo in perl. the main `info`
program is still in pure C.
when it comes to packages installing .info pages, it's largely limited to the
GNU projects as the format has never really caught on. many of those projects
also install man pages.
personall
