Le 17/02/2015 15:17, Fernando de Oliveira a écrit :
On 17-02-2015 11:03, Pierre Labastie wrote:
What do you think? I think that either g-i should be built early when
building a full book, or should never be built. Three packages seem to
require it, so they'd need to be tested without g-i. But if really it is
impossible to build them without g-i, g-i should be recommended almost
everywhere:
For my builds, I consider it always recommended and build it as early as
I can. Learned it the hard way, as you are now. Needed some discussions
in the past and remember Ken telling me the good order he used (uses).
However, remember people disliking it and trying to keep it optional. If
they still think that, it would be interesting hearing from them.
Whatever you decide, is good for me, but as written above, "my book"
will consider it almost required.
I too, usually, build g-i early, but I think some users could be hit by this
problem.
Whatever we decide, it is a big job: some packages with g-i optional have an
explicit
"--disable-introspection" switch, which should be removed if we recommend g-i.
On the contrary, some packages would need this switch is we decide to put g-i
optional everywhere.
So before starting either direction, I think I need more input from others.
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
