Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/23/06 17:54 CST: > Wouldn't it be better to have: > > Optional patch (Needed if using system-installed versions of NSS and > NSPR): > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/blfs/svn/firefox-1.5-system_nss-1.patch > > and > > Recommended > > nss-3.11 (Needed if you will be installing any other package that > utilizes NSS/NSPR, such as Thunderbird or Mozilla)
Well, I remember something Igor told me long, long ago. At the time when I wrote the Heimdal hint and Igor added it the book, I was surprised that he didn't add in a note or link to the CrackLib patch. When I asked him about it, he said that the policy of patches was that only 'required' patches could be added to the book. Sure enough there is text in the book that explains what and why patches are put in BLFS. Optional patches don't qualify to the listed criteria. Igor finally relented to my pressuring him about it, and added the patch in as "Required (if you have CrackLib installed)". I've since then used his method of adding in patches that aren't truly required except if you have a dependency installed as a way of circumventing the patch policy. So, ever since then, I've always made sure to say the patch was 'Required' (perhaps with some stipulation like Firefox has). Hopefully, this makes sense. And, to be honest, I like the patch policy that exists, as I believe it keeps unnecessary and undesired patches out of the book. If you think I should change it to "optional" I'll be glad to, but we need to consider the policy in place. -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 17:58:00 up 121 days, 3:22, 3 users, load average: 0.13, 0.07, 0.09 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
