Fernando de Oliveira
famobr at yahoo.com.br
Sat Aug 31 12:57:00 PDT 2013
Em 31-08-2013 10:24, Igor Živković escreveu:
> On 08/31/2013 02:17 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> Em 31-08-2013 08:50, Igor Živković escreveu:
>>> On 08/30/2013 11:47 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>>> I never use the dependencies: Redland-1.0.16 (which requires
>>>> Rasqal-0.9.30 > Raptor-2.0.10, all started by R's), OpenLDAP-2.4.36,
>>>> Berkeley DB-6.0.20 and unixODBC-2.3.1. Is it OK to move them to Optional?
>>> If we are not going to explicitly disable those dependecies with
>>> configure switches I'd rather leave them as recommended. I think the
>>> note on the LO page about this is pretty clear. The only exception are
>>> dependecies currently not in the book.
>> But just inform, in case
>> someone else wants to do it, that I do install in
>> /opt/libreoffice-188.8.131.52 and use it frequently.
> I have nothing against adding instructions to install LO to /opt just
> like we do with Qt.
This part is easy, only a sentence perhaps commenting "the large size,
so the user may prefer to install in /opt. For this, just replace /usr
by /opt/libreoffice-184.108.40.206" (version in the rendered book will change
with the corresponding xml entity).
>> However, I cannot see how to explicitly disable them.
> Actually you can't, my bad. You can only explicitly set it to use
> system-installed packages which is default anyways.
Let me try again:
-Change a little the Note
-Move Recommended B, O to U (except OpenSSL) to Optional
-Move corresponding switches to Command Explanations, after
"with-system-*, creating a block of "if you have installed or wish to
install, so that build size and time are decreased".
-Remove the two patches.
Why? Ken and I have installed B just for this, and in different times,
book, Ken or I stopped using it. LO is large, developers have much to do
to get all packages in the suite to work together, and often fail to
update for the new versions of the dependencies (Poppler and Boost are
current on this). Other dependencies are not used by many people, or at
least not by me and I do no think none should recommend a user to
install any of them just for LO.
Of course, I can understand if this is not good for the book. or if it
would create some inconsistencies with the definitions of Required
Recommend Optional. I have always agreeded with your position, Igor,
about the necessity of consistency of these. If you and Ken, who had
questioned, with reason, Python, agree with these, I could try to update
the package. If not, I think it would be wrong doing it, if I do not
have the required installed, or am I wrong here?
More information about the blfs-dev