On 10/5/06, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 10/05/06 09:05 CST:
> Do we really want to link to software like DirectFB that didn't even
> build with any linux-libc-headers in the not-so-distant past? (of
> course, if DirectFB does build on unmodified LFS-6.2 now, my objection
> is void)
I have no idea. I just know that Cairo uses it. If the dependency
doesn't build, that really isn't my concern. Just because a dependency
is listed as 'optional', doesn't mean BLFS recommends you install it.
I agree with Randy here. We can't check every package outside of BLFS
and make sure you can build it correctly, etc. Cairo can use DirectFB,
and that's all that the Optional Dependency says. As I recall, the
only package we explicitly removed from Optional Dependencies was
editline which directly conflicted with readline and caused problems.
To my knowledge, DirectFB doesn't conflict with anything (correct me
if I'm wrong, please).
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-book
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
