[blfs-dev] Dependencies in X chapter
Fernando de Oliveira
famobr at yahoo.com.br
Fri Dec 27 09:06:25 PST 2013
Em 27-12-2013 13:03, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
> Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> Em 27-12-2013 09:26, Pierre Labastie escreveu:
>>> As you may have seen, I have added xorg-env as a dependency of xbitmaps. But
>>> since xbitmaps is required by Xorg applications, which also requires mesalib,
>>> which requires xcb-proto and the like, it may be not necessary. However,
>>> theoretically, a user following the dependencies for X server backward may end
>>> up building xbitmaps as the first package in the X chapter (I agree that the
>>> probability is small).
>> I would keep it as you modified (actually, I missed that, when studying
>> the problem).
>>> Furthermore xscreensaver requires only Xorg
>>> applications (well, that is king of weird to me, but Armin has arguments about
>>> the server running remotely). In this case, the probability is slightly higher.
>> This should be fixed to include the whole xorg as required runtime
>>> There is also something which bothers me: when a dependency refers to X Window
>>> system, where should the user begin? The id "x-window-system" refers to the
>>> beginning of the chapter, but nowhere it is said what should be built to get a
>>> working X installation (actually, the xcb-util-xxx packages are not needed for
>>> a basic installation, and neither are xclock, twm, xterm nor xinit, although
>>> the last four are useful to do the first tests of Xorg).
>> I had the same problem, when fixing fop, earlier today, and did what
>> thought was best. But a better definition of a working xorg for runtime
>> dependencies would be good, perhaps it is just xorg-drivers or xinit?
> I think we may be getting too carried away with this. For the vast
> majority of users, they will build Xorg in sequence from Introduction to
> Testing. Handling other situations seems to be overkill. Sure, twm may
> not be needed, but it really doesn't hurt. When the package needs Xorg,
> just saying Xorg should be enough. Which piece(s) is/are not that
LOL. OK, let us not be carried away. Actually, the main problem leading
here was not user errors, but devs complaints.
>>> BTW, shouldn't twm be added to the deps of xinit, at the same level as xterm
>>> and xclock? Right now xterm and xclock are "required (runtime only)", and twm
>>> is not mentioned. Strictly speaking, none of the three are required, even at
>>> runtime: you could build another terminal (say rxvt), forget about xclock,
>>> build another WM, and start them in ~/.xinitrc. Of course, If you keep the
>>> defaults, xclock, xterm and twm are started by xinit? So I suggest to put them
>>> as "recommended (used by default at runtime)".
> I don't think so. The book has had the same general layout since about
> 2004 and this is really the first time it's come up. Advanced users
> should know enough to be able to make changes on their own. If not,
> they should just follow the book.
I really agree that modifications of the book's layout should be
I promised Pierre to not change his modifications in subversion, but
every time I look at that page, I see that it is inconsistent with the
rest of the book.
To Pierre: please, I would like you to agree with me and then I would
modify back subversion format (not dependencies nor technical parts).
More information about the blfs-dev