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

Wayne Blaszczyk wblaszcz at bigpond.net.au
Wed Jan 20 01:40:17 PST 2010


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Wayne Blaszczyk wrote these words on 01/19/10 07:58 CST:
>> Randy,
>> 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.
> 
> This goes strictly against policies set by BLFS for years. BLFS disables
> optional dependencies, and puts the --disable-whatever on the command
> line. Only in extenuating circumstances have we varied from that policy.
> 
Sorry, I didn't realize this was the policy. From now on I'll write up
the command line with a minimalist build.

> 
>> 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.
> 
> BLFS has policy that does it differently. BLFS does not care what the
> developer thinks we should do, BLFS allows the user to make those
> decisions. BLFS' job is to identify to the readers what the dependency
> is used for (if it is not obvious). Then the readers chooses.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> You'll have to rephrase that for me. I don't really understand what you
> mean. :-(
> 
If package A has a required dependency, package B and package B has a an
optional dependency, package C, and package A requires package C to be
present during package B build otherwise it breaks package A, and
package B is not used for anything else but package A, then I don't see
why package C cannot be bumped up to a recommended dependency for package B.
I hope this makes it more understandable.
Wayne.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFLVs+BhfgHoRhX2wIRAm9UAKCl65k5VKwixFQnMBBA8CwxcNZsLwCdEdnZ
sgLd6r6tPQnKBbJJWx39bBM=
=hyYj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the blfs-book mailing list