contact at igor-zivkovic.from.hr
Sat Aug 31 14:52:03 PDT 2013
On 08/31/2013 09:57 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> 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?
I don't think you need to test LibreOffice with all the recommended
packages to update the book. There is simply not enough book editors for
that kind of work. We can easily remove the dependency, add a note or
patch at later time if we get a bug report.
More information about the blfs-dev