proposal (and an important message)
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Sun Jul 26 14:42:02 PDT 2009
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 07/26/09 16:14 CST:
>> However, please try to install as many dependencies of the package
>> you are updating as possible. At least common and/or important and/or
>> ones you think most folks will install.
>> That way, we'll know those dependencies don't break the original
>> package. Hope this makes sense to everyone. If not, let me know and
>> I'll try to clarify.
> I read this and I'm not sure it is clear so I'll give an example.
> Say you are updating OpenLDAP. Of the optional dependencies listed,
> try to install as many as you can (you don't need to go overboard
> and install every one), just so we know that a build using the
> optional dependency will build properly.
> Now a package like PHP could take you a month to install all the
> optional dependencies. I have in the past and it is time consuming
> as hell. So use your good judgment.
> Worry less about packages whose optional dependencies are simply
> the programming bindings for the various languages. Only developers
> really need them, and they should be able to figure out how to get
> their binding installed.
> I hope this makes better sense.
My rule of thumb is:
All required dependencies (yes, this should be obvious)
All recommended dependencies
As many optional dependencies already in BLFS as reasonable. This is the hard
part to specify and requires judgment. Many times its everything, but some of
the more complex packages really don't need *everything*.
I don't generally install dependencies that are external to the book unless I
need them for my work or an application I want.
More information about the blfs-dev