Em 28-09-2015 16:10, Ken Moffat escreveu: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 05:49:52PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 10:09:05AM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >>> Em 27-09-2015 18:04, [email protected] escreveu: >> >> Let's take this back to -dev. >> >>>> Author: ken >>>> Date: Sun Sep 27 14:04:27 2015 >>>> New Revision: 16477 >>>> >>>> Log: >>>> Minor fixups in gnome. >>>> >> >>>> +++ trunk/BOOK/gnome/applications/gnome-system-monitor.xml Sun Sep 27 >>>> 14:04:27 2015 (r16477) >>>> @@ -123,6 +123,16 @@ >>>> >>>> </sect2> >>>> >>>> + <sect2 role="commands"> >>>> + <title>Command Explanations</title> >>>> + >>>> + <para> >>>> + <parameter>--enable-wnck</parameter>: This switch adds support for >>>> + <application>libwnck</application>. >>>> + </para> >>>> + >>>> + </sect2> >>>> + >>> >>> This is very clarifying, indeed!!! >>> > > And on -book Bruce commented: > > | LOL. Yes I agree. How about: > | > | This switch adds support for the Window Navigator Construction Kit > | libraries. > > I have now built gnome-system-monitor both with and without libwnck, > and run the without version from a DESTDIR. I cannot see any > obvious difference in the display, and the only thing I have > detected is that the binary is a bit bigger when linked to libwnck. > > The switch was added in May last year (yes, I have been ignoring > gnome packages), in r13135 when the book moved to the 3.12.2 > version. At that time, libwnck was downgraded from Required to > Recommended. I respect Fernando's judgement that it should be > recommended, even if I cannot work out what benefit it provides. > Perhaps some windowmanagers benefit from this switch ? > > I found that there was a bug in 3.12.2 where --disable-wnck was > treated as --enable-wnck, but nothing else. > > In the absence of an explanation for the benefits of doing this, > I'll go with Bruce's wording. > > ĸen >
Here is an agreement. I barely remember the reasons, perhaps I thought if it was until recently required, perhaps it is important to keep in recommended. For me I would simply move to optional. Like you, I cannot work out any benefit. Thanks for mentioning. + 1 to move to optional. -- []s, Fernando, aka Sísifo -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
