On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:09:43PM -0400, Jean-Marc Pigeon via blfs-dev wrote:
> On 08/15/2019 08:20 PM, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote:
> > I updated it differently a while ago :
> > c) python-lxml recommended
> >
> > Your distro, your rules.
> I know, but my intent was to contribute to BLFS.
And I acknowledged your, and Uwe's, contributions in the changelog.
So yes, you have contributed. But disabling python in libreoffice
is not the only solution, and not what upstream seem to wish - so
disabling it is definitely a "your choice" decision.
For me, the discussion was useful because I've now moved my build of
lxml earlier in my sequence so I am hopeful that when I eventually
do a fresh build for 9.0 it will succeed.
> Well....
> Let me summarize.
> 1) Code freeze
Except where the instructions turn out to be problematic, or for
expected updates, or for (some) vulnerabilities.
In this case, I had upgraded libreoffice on existing systems where
I'd already completed enough of my normal build to have lxml
installed. So my view is that the recommended dependencies were
incomplete (hey, I got the libepoxy dep, one out of two is better
than none).
Oh, and I was sorely tempted to add xmlsec1 as recommended, but in
the end there are several released packages which get downloaded and
built into libreoffice - and like xmlsec1, nothing else in the book
uses them, so separating them (as most distros do, but they also do
that with the other unreleased or forked packages) doesn't gain a
lot.
> 2) Book instruction make libreoffice build impossible
> 3) Within Version 2019-08-15, libreoffice-6.3.0, I see no
> reference to python-lxml
It's there, if you did 'svn up' after I added it, the date will
still be 2019-08-15. If you look online, it will be there in the
first 2019-08-16 version (I think it gets updated twice per day).
> 4) Trouble analyze establish a very very probable cause (as to be
> within book directives).
>
> So I have for my say, issue should be resolved before release.
>
And I believe it has been.
> Note:
> I would choose the option "python-lxml mandatory", but as
> the release is not that fare away, it could be safe to say
> --enable-python=no and clear up the issue for 9.1(?) release.
> This is not my call to decide.
>
You seem to not understand "recommended" in the BLFS book - either a
recommended package adds extra functionality, OR it can be omitted
but you might need to adjust the instructions. This is an example
of the latter.
Seomtimes we document options for how to avoid a recommended dep.
In this case, because of the unquantified potential loss of
functionality I'm not prepared to do that this close to a release.
The past problems with hsqldb were an example of why we should be
cautious. If *I* was to change to using a conventional package
manager with DESTDIR installs (e.g. like in Arch AUR) I'd only
install calc and writer (plus translations and dictionaries), so
dropping python might suit me well. But for people who want to use
other parts of the suite, python might turn out to be very
important.
ĸen
--
Adopted by dwarfs, brought up by dwarfs. To dwarfs I'm a dwarf, sir.
I can do the rite of k'zakra, I know the secrets of h'ragna, I can
ha'lk my g'rakha correctly ... I am a dwarf
Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson (in The Fifth Elephant)
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
