El Viernes, 19 de Mayo de 2006 23:17, Randy McMurchy escribió: > I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, Manuel. We cannot > legitimately say the Python should be recommended. What if one doesn't > want to install GNOME (probably 95% of the readers)?
Then maybe how that optional blocks are written should be changed. I don't see logical to have and Optional block for two testsuites dependencies and other Optional block for one testsuite dependencie plus a dependency required to build a pluging that other BLFS package depend on, while Python is listed in both. > We can't recommend stuff because it will make Jalfs easier. :-) When you will learn to write properly jhalfs? And like I said in PD2, jhalfs can be fixed in other ways. There is several other issues most hard to solve than that. -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
