Recommended Dependencies

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Sat Aug 29 09:20:01 PDT 2009


Randy McMurchy wrote:
> My take is that Recommended is actually wrong here. I think the proper
> syntax should be:
>
>   <bridgehead renderas="sect4">Required</bridgehead>
>     <para role="required"><xref linkend="gpm"/> (if mouse support is
>     desired) and
>     <xref linkend="openssl"/> (if SSL support is desired)</para>
>
> If you want the support these two dependencies provide, then the dependencies
> are *required*. Let's actually use correct terminology in these types of
> instances.
>
> Please, if you disagree or have comments feel free to provide them. I'm
> simply making suggestions here. I would like feedback from others.
>   
I'm not seeing it the same way.  In fact, gpm should be an optional 
dependency IMO.

Required:  Package will not build/install/work without it.
Recommended:  Package looses significant functionality without it or 
(new) causes issues with other packages if omitted.
Optional:  Package gets additional functionality if it's included.

Of course, Lynx/Links might just be a bad example for me.  I've used one 
of them in graphical mode exactly once in my life.  I consider them to 
be text browsers...mouse support and graphics are unneeded extras IMO.  
But, recommended is always subject to opinion, that's why I suggested 
peer review before adding a recommended dep for any future changes.  A 
review of the existing recommendations can't hurt.  80 packages?  Won't 
take all that long.

-- DJ Lucas


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.




More information about the blfs-dev mailing list