On 1/23/06, Bruce Dubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And you can still do that. Recommended means that it is not required, > but in the opinion of the Book's Editors, should be installed. We are, > afer all, quite a bit more experienced than the average user. > > I believe that users *want* guidance. If they didn't, they could just > download the packages themselves and figure out the right commands.
Exactly. I would want guidance on the dependencies but I (personally) would not like the selections to be made for me. Additionally, the recommended thing is very subjective (i.e. based on who is updating the instructions). Sometimes when I go thru the book, I find that some optional dependency does not seem that useful. For example, arts lists libjpeg as a recommended dependency. Now why would I need a sound support application to link against a graphics library? That would mean I would have to recompile arts if the soname of libjpeg changed. > > They are trying to provide flexibility. Many developers don't hesitate > to recommend support packages. I know, for instance, that Keith Packard > recommends fontconfig for X, even though it is not strictly required. > When we know of those recommendations, we generally follow them. We should probably put it in the Optional category with a note that the pacakge maintainer recommends the dependency. > > That is for support purposes. We also assume that there are no custom > optimizations and that all of LFS is installed. We do cater for some. gpm has a LDFLAGS=-lm which is only needed if the optimization -Os is used. -- 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
