On 03/02/2018 11:09, Armin K. wrote: > On Sat, 2018-02-03 at 09:49 +0100, Pierre Labastie wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I do not know why Armin, at revision 10159, promoted a bunch of >> dependencies >> from optional to recommended, but it seems some of them should have >> stayed >> optional: >> [...] > > Huh, that was quite long time ago. I was still new then, so I probably > thought "these packages aer very common, why not have this > functionality?". From memory, it took me quite some time to get all the > "Required", "Recommended", and "Optional" stuff. > > Anyway, I trust your judgement, so you should do what you think is > best. >
Forgot to say that I do trust your judgment too (actually that's the reason why I mentioned your name), since I think you have much better technical skills than I do. But having all those libraries as recommended create unneeded circular dependencies, specially when it comes to building documentation stuff (doxygen at least). Maybe we could recommend to build a "pass 1" graphviz without any of those deps, then to build libraries needed for builder's use, then rebuild graphviz... Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
