[blfs-dev] libreoffice-18.104.22.168 withought cups
lfs65 at cruziero.com
Fri Mar 29 03:21:06 PDT 2013
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:55:29 +0200
> From: Thanos Baloukas <baloukasthan at sch.gr>
> To: blfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org
> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] libreoffice-22.214.171.124 withought cups
> On 03/29/2013 08:05 AM, Armin K. wrote:
> > On 03/29/2013 06:49 AM, Thanos Baloukas wrote:
> >> libreoffice-126.96.36.199 compiled here with no cups installed,
> >> with --disable-cups. Maybe cups could move in optional deps.
> >> Thanos
> > Well, it's Office suite and one of the office tasks is "Printing" ... We
> > have many apps recommended, but have explanations how to disable them if
> > desired. I can add --disable-cups to such explanations.
> I understand that, but cups is in required dependencies.
Without wishing to 'hijack' a thread, or resume a possible controversy, could
the present policy on required/recommended/optional classification of
dependencies, be clarified, please, if possible? Thanks.
I know there's been some contrary opinion in the past about what each category
should actually mean, and under what circumstances would a package be marked as
e.g. 'required' while some thought it should be just 'recommended strongly'; or
a package marked as required because, although not required technically, a view
in some quarters was taken that 'why would you _not_ want the package present';
and so on.
Part of the reason for asking is for doing and maintaining some reliable
automated analyses of chains of deps in blfs: it would be good to know how much
one can rely on strict categorisation in the source xml.
More information about the blfs-dev