[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Why do we not require libgd?



On Sat, 2004-02-21 at 20:27, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I thought there was a reason involving licensing, but I can't find any hint
> of it now.  If we don't force LIBGD to no in configparms, we get the
> memusage script and memusagestat binary, which are quite handy.  I imagine
> we'd need to create a new package for them, since having libc6-dev (is that
> the appropriate place?) depend on libgd2 might be uncool, but that's not
> hard to do.

I've never looked at those scripts, but a quick read of the license
makes it look okay.  (I'll check them out when I rebuild next)

libgd2-noxpm is 500k (150k could be shaved off if they compressed
/usr/share/doc/libgd2-noxpm/index.html), so I don't think it's a
hardship if the tool is generally useful.

Tks,
Jeff Bailey

-- 
I never know what to expect when you respond to my postings. No insult
intended, you are merely a surprise :)
 - Carlos O'Donnell

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: