DJ Lucas wrote these words on 08/29/09 11:20 CST: > Randy McMurchy wrote: >> My take is that Recommended is actually wrong here. I think the proper >> syntax should be: >> >> <bridgehead renderas="sect4">Required</bridgehead> >> <para role="required"><xref linkend="gpm"/> (if mouse support is >> desired) and >> <xref linkend="openssl"/> (if SSL support is desired)</para> >> >> If you want the support these two dependencies provide, then the dependencies >> are *required*. Let's actually use correct terminology in these types of >> instances. >> >> Please, if you disagree or have comments feel free to provide them. I'm >> simply making suggestions here. I would like feedback from others. >> > I'm not seeing it the same way. In fact, gpm should be an optional > dependency IMO.
I agree. I got caught up with trying to dissuade Recommended, yet not mention Optional. I think DJ is correct in that GPM should simply be Optional (with a parenthetical note). > Required: Package will not build/install/work without it. There has been in the past a slightly different look about the above. Keep in mind the "Run Time" thing we have hashed out a million times. If a package needs a dependency only at run-time, then we annotate that. > Recommended: Package looses significant functionality without it or > (new) causes issues with other packages if omitted. We see the same on all cases except this one. This is where it has always been "Editor's Choice". And I'm not a big fan of that one. I look at it that if an Optional package dependency can be identified in a short parenthetical note that it provides significant functionality, then that is the way to do it. Example: Gimp right now. libjpeg and libtiff are Recommended. And I have to agree with that, using DJ's "significant functionality" rule. But that sort of conflicts what I just said in the previous paragraph. The difference I see is that if we don't put these two libraries as Recommended, then we put the switches to disable them on the configure command line. This is what I don't like. A user that has the libraries installed but simply cuts and pastes our instructions. That user just built a Gimp that doesn't support basic images. Hence, recommended. So indeed there is "Editor's Choice". It just has to be used prudently. > [snip] > But, recommended is always subject to opinion, that's why I suggested > peer review before adding a recommended dep for any future changes. I agree with this. > A > review of the existing recommendations can't hurt. 80 packages? Won't > take all that long. I'm putting together the data right now. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [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] 11:23:00 up 2:17, 1 user, load average: 0.58, 0.99, 0.85 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
