akhiezer wrote: > 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.
Required means that the package is needed to build. Recommended means that significant functionality is missing without that dep. The instructions assume that recommended deps are installed and the user may need to do some experimentation or at least change some configuration options to build without the package. Occasionally there will be a (not recommended) note in optional dependencies, even though the package can be built with that dep. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
