Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/23/06 19:33 CST: > and any "Recommended" > package dependencies should state *why* there are "Recommended".
I agree with this, kind of. However, this question was asked long ago in this thread, and answered. See the response about OpenSSL. Summary is, what is different with saying something is recommended as opposed to giving the explanation *why it is recommended*? Sure that information would be nice. But it is expensive. Good text describing research takes time and effort. You simply are asking too much for Editors to do this when the whole point is *We recommend you install X, Y, and Z*. Are you saying that we shouldn't recommend this stuff, *even though we know it should be*, because we don't have the time, inclination, desire or skill to describe it? I don't think *anyone* reading this thread would agree with that statement. And to me, summarizes this the whole thread. -- 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] 20:05:00 up 121 days, 5:29, 3 users, load average: 1.28, 0.78, 0.43 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
