Recommended Dependencies [was: Re: r5444 ]

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Dec 18 08:55:07 PST 2005


Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 12/18/05 10:24 CST:

[CCing to BLFS-dev]

> I felt printing was a reasonable addition to gimp, so I recommended it.
>  There is a note, in addition to the usual command explanations,
> explaining what to do if you don't want it.

So, going forward, is it because of "conventions" (as was explained
in the commit message for Gimp) or because an Editor "feels it is
reasonable" to arbitrarily make something "recommended".

I "feel" that you should have the GNOME desktop installed if you
are going to run Gnumeric. So, does that mean we should add GNOME
as a required dependency, and remove the --without-gnome switch?

My thoughts are we offer a technical solution to building packages
from the source code. However, the technical accuracy is being
distorted. Dependencies are being recommended (and the instructions
modified accordingly) on now what appears to be emotional and/or
opinionated decisions.

There never used to be "recommended" dependencies. The first ones
were put in the KDE instructions (I'm pretty sure about that, but
not positive) because it is listed on the *maintainer's* web site
that those packages are "recommended" so that KDE is functionally
sane.

After KDE, some packages had dependencies recommended when the
package didn't build with full functionality without the
dependency and there was no switch to tell the build to omit it.
Okay. Reasonable I suppose.

Now, it appears that we are recommending dependencies, and
modifying the book accordingly, on opinions. It shouldn't be that
way. Opinions are way too subjective, and what one guy thinks is
important, is needless to another.

Oh well, sorry for the rant. I am just against adding opinion and
"feelings" into what should be technical advice.

-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
10:28:00 up 84 days, 19:52, 3 users, load average: 0.61, 0.70, 0.72



More information about the blfs-book mailing list