Armin K. wrote: > On 07/15/2013 09:38 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Armin K. wrote: >>> On 07/15/2013 09:08 PM, Igor Živković wrote: >>>> On 07/15/2013 08:24 PM, Armin K. wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And to clarify, we don't break other packages. Disabling this by default >>>>> would break some GNOME packages and that's not what I want. For those >>>>> who are not building GNOME, we explain how to omit it. Deps were listed >>>>> as recommended once, but as I mentioned, I was somehow "forced" to make >>>>> it like this just for the sake of "I hate GNOME, I don't want the >>>>> components it requires as recommended". That's why I created the >>>>> "Optional (Required for GNOME)" dependency listing but we agreed not to >>>>> disable anything by default that other package might need. >>>> >>>> I'd rather note them as recommended then but if you discussed it already >>>> it's ok by me. >>>> >>> >>> As I said, they were recommended, but then someone complained and we >>> came to an agreement not to list them as recommended, but also not to >>> disable them by default. >> >> I'm looking for that conversation but can't find it. Do you remember >> about when it occurred?
> Dunno, it was between me and Andy back then. Someone was testing JHALFS > with BLFS and stumbled upon introspection issue due to it being > recommended for one but not on another. Maybe when LFS 7.2 was released? > Or some time arround when I put GNOME 3.4 into the book. Well I've always liked the Recommended section with short phrases about why they are recommended. The instructions then assume the recommendations are followed. Do we want to go back to that now? If so, I'd only want to do it on a as-needed basis. There are still a ton of packages with it. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
