r8219 - in trunk/BOOK: . gnome/add introduction/welcome

Wayne Blaszczyk wblaszcz at bigpond.net.au
Tue Jan 19 05:58:12 PST 2010

Hash: SHA1

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> wblaszcz at linuxfromscratch.org wrote these words on 01/19/10 06:15 CST:
>> Author: wblaszcz
>> Date: 2010-01-19 05:15:41 -0700 (Tue, 19 Jan 2010)
>> New Revision: 8219
>> Modified:
>>    trunk/BOOK/general.ent
>>    trunk/BOOK/gnome/add/gnome-mount.xml
>>    trunk/BOOK/introduction/welcome/changelog.xml
>> Log:
>> Updated to gnome-mount-0.8.
>> +    <bridgehead renderas="sect4">Recommended</bridgehead>
>> +    <para role="recommended"><xref linkend="nautilus"/></para>
>> +
>>      <bridgehead renderas="sect4">Optional</bridgehead>
>> -    <para role="optional"><xref linkend="nautilus"/>,
>> -    <xref linkend="libnotify"/>,
>> -    and <xref linkend="intltool"/></para>
> I know it was a couple of months ago that we discussed all this moving
> dependencies from optional to recommended. I believe you didn't
> participate in the discussion. But what was determined was that we would
> identify *why* things are recommended. You completely dismissed that.
> I've been just sitting back watching, and you continue to change almost
> every package to "recommend" something. I disagree with most of your
> recommendations that I've seen. I've kept quiet because I didn't want
> to stifle your work, and I'm not exactly the biggest contributer. I'm
> going to go through the entire GNOME section and its required
> dependencies and see how many are now recommended, when simply
> mentioning what it would do in parenthesis in the optional section
> would be preferred.
> Wayne, I truly appreciate the work you are doing. I kept up the GNOME
> section for years, before you did this last update. I know how much
> time is involved, but at this point I thought I'd remind you that we
> *did* discuss this dependency issue and we (the community) came to a
> consensus. You for whatever reason seem to just disregard it. I am
> not a big fan of "recommending" optional dependencies just because
> an editor feels it makes the package "better". And without some sort
> of explanation why the dependency is recommended, it is then just
> editor choice, which we determined we wouldn't do any longer.
Most of my Recommend dependency choices are done based on a set of rules
that I go by. That is, if an optional dependency that is not going to be
used and requires an explicit optional switch to disable that
dependency, then I put it as a recommend dependency. The reasoning
behind this is that I feel that the developer wants you to used that
dependency. The above example with gnome-mount is such a case where if
nautilus is not installed, then the configure script will complain about
it being missing unless the -disable-nautilus-extension option is specified.
Another reason why I would make something as recommended, is if that
optional dependency is a requirement to an upstream package and that the
package in question is only used by that upstream package.
The reason why I have mostly ( i have in a few) not been putting any
explanations is that I don't know exactly what those options actually
do. This was something that I was going to go back to and review once I
had gone through all the Gnome packages. I do realize that this is a
community project and if someone has an objection to something that I
have done, I quite happy to make those changes. I didn't see anyone
complain so I thought everything was ok. I might have missed some posts
so I do apologize for that.
The recommended dependencies is not a big deal to me and I'm quite happy
to remove all of them if that's what is desired. But what I would like
to see is some clear cut rules on when to use them. Maybe the editors
guide should have a section on this.
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the blfs-book mailing list