On 1/23/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar requested that we start a new thread to discuss Optional vs > Recommended patches/dependencies.
Yay:) > The issue is when should an optional patch be included in the book and > when either a patch or dependency should be labelled "Recommended". My opinion is that there should only be two categories: Required and Optional. Recommended is highly subjective. What is recommended by one user may not be so appropriate for another. I started using LFS because I didn't like the fact that installing a package X caused packages A to M getting installed just because the distro creator thought it was nice to have the extra functionality. For me the best part about LFS is that I can install the bare minimum packages to get something working. If I needed some added features, I can evaluate each feature and decide if that is right for me and then install the required dependency. One way to look at it is if the package maintainer had thought that some dependency was absolutely essential, he/she would have made it a required one. Additionally, the way the Recommended dependency is treated on the lists is different. Basically it is assumed that Recommended == Required. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
