[RFC] BLFS Profile: Dependencies not included in the BLFS Book

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Mar 12 08:36:35 PST 2005

Joachim Beckers wrote:

> because a {package} doesn't depend on a {name} (like in the second 
> example), but on a {package} that has a {name} (like in the first 
> example). also, the first example separates requirements from optional 
> packages, which might come out handy when doing dependency-resolution.

I don't think I understand your comments here :-(

What do you mean by {package} depending on a {name}? How is this 
different from {requires} and {utilizes} using {name}?

Also, the current syntax separates required packages from optional 
packages just fine; all the {requires} elements are required, and all 
the {utilizes} elements are optional. Adding another layer inside these 
elements, or combining them together, won't really provide any benefit 
for dependency resolution.

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list