Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 02/27/08 09:15 CST: > (Yes, that's a request to change the policy about configuration options that > require optional packages, that's why I am cross-posting to blfs-dev. My > proposal is to list the options that the editor has used, and, below that, a > list of optional dependencies that they imply as a minimum, and a list of > optional dependencies actually installed by the editor who updated the page.)
It's my preference (note I only say a preference, but the community will be the final authority) to keep the policy we have intact. I don't see the harm in using a basic ./configure line which does not pull in optional dependencies. If this configuration has limitations and/or problems, then we identify it and let the *installer* choose what to do. A mention of what configuration options were used by the Editor in the Command Explanations section would be fine, which we essentially do now. I suppose I'm just not understanding the technical merit we'd gain by doing things differently. I'd rather we keep the way we've done it as it shows the reader a basic configuration. It's up to the reader to use additional options identified in the Command Explanation section, and/or ./configure --help output. It's my opinion that if we were to start adding in stuff to the ./configure line, then a reader may assume that you *must* do it that way or things won't work properly. Continued discussion is welcome. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.22] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 09:50:00 up 18 days, 1:35, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.17, 0.18 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
