On 03/29/2013 12:21 PM, akhiezer wrote: >> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:55:29 +0200 >> From: Thanos Baloukas <baloukast...@sch.gr> >> To: blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org >> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] libreoffice-4.0.1.2 withought cups >> >> On 03/29/2013 08:05 AM, Armin K. wrote: >>> On 03/29/2013 06:49 AM, Thanos Baloukas wrote: >>>> libreoffice-4.0.1.2 compiled here with no cups installed, >>>> with --disable-cups. Maybe cups could move in optional deps. >>>> >>>> Thanos >>>> >>> >>> Well, it's Office suite and one of the office tasks is "Printing" ... We >>> have many apps recommended, but have explanations how to disable them if >>> desired. I can add --disable-cups to such explanations. >>> >> >> I understand that, but cups is in required dependencies. >> >> Thanos >> > > > Without wishing to 'hijack' a thread, or resume a possible controversy, could > the present policy on required/recommended/optional classification of > dependencies, be clarified, please, if possible? Thanks. > > I know there's been some contrary opinion in the past about what each category > should actually mean, and under what circumstances would a package be marked > as > e.g. 'required' while some thought it should be just 'recommended strongly'; > or > a package marked as required because, although not required technically, a > view > in some quarters was taken that 'why would you _not_ want the package > present'; > and so on. > > Part of the reason for asking is for doing and maintaining some reliable > automated analyses of chains of deps in blfs: it would be good to know how > much > one can rely on strict categorisation in the source xml. > > > Thanks, > > akhiezer >
A book's maintainer could answer that, I just want to say that I started the thread thinking that deps are classified as required if package can not built without them. Please excuse me if I'm wrong. Thanos -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
