Pierre Labastie a écrit : > One recent example is transcode, where instructions have been > recently added > for using freetype2, while freetype2 is in the optional deps > (Fernando, please, do not be upset: it is just an example).
LOL. No worries. Thanks for the kindness :-) Em 11-01-2014 06:21, Igor Živković escreveu: > On 01/11/2014 10:02 AM, Pierre Labastie wrote: >> >> I'd like to know when instructions for optional features should be given, and >> when deemed such, why they should not be moved to recommended instructions. > > The way I see it, recommended classification should be used for: > > 1) dependencies that require explicit switch to disable at compile time Yes. It is like: the author of the package recommends it, so do we. > 2) system-installed dependencies which can be used instead of bundled ones Yes. So that if we have in the system, does not double the effort or question of we chose the version, not the packages's author. > 3) dependencies that add a feature that is required to build some other > package in the book Yes. So that the user will not have an unpleasant surprise, if follow the book. > Everything else is either required or optional. My problem is having that in mind. I need to print, frame and nail in the wall, in front of me. > There is nothing wrong > with listing and explaining optional dependencies in detail or fixing > packages to build with some optional feature. Yes. We have a package in the book, the user tries to build and fails for something we knew but did not write: not fair. -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
