[blfs-dev] libreoffice-18.104.22.168 withought cups
baloukasthan at sch.gr
Fri Mar 29 04:09:52 PDT 2013
On 03/29/2013 12:21 PM, akhiezer wrote:
>> 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.
>>> 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.
A book's maintainer could answer that, I just want to say that
I started the thread thinking that deps are classified as required
if package can not built without them. Please excuse me if I'm wrong.
More information about the blfs-dev