On Wednesday, January 27, 2016, akhiezer <[email protected]> wrote: > > To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> > > From: Bruce Dubbs <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > > Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:29:10 -0600 > > Subject: [lfs-dev] pcre > > > > Should we add pcre to LFS? Both less and grep can use it and the only > > optional dependency is valgrind. > > > > There are 21 packages in BLFS that list it as a dependency. > > > > It's a small package (1.5 MB, 0.3 SBU). > > > > > It's noted that when a package 'A' gets moved from blfs to lfs, then > for those packages 'B*' in blfs that had package 'A' as a dependency > (required/recommended/optional/&c), all of the deps-infos related to > package > 'A', gets ripped out of blfs: and packages 'B*' are just "assumed" to > "need" > "all" of lfs. > > > IOW, deps info gets thrown away; and the many folks that know that > e.g. acl/attr/&c are _not_ _really_ needed in lfs, and belong more in blfs, > then essentially each of those folks have to restore and maintain the deps > infos themselves, to 'forks' of b/lfs ; it causes unnecessary replication > of work across folks. > > > If there is good quantified data - e.g. via analyses of deps-chains - for > the core set of packages that really should form the lfs platform, then > fine. Without that, there seems to be a tendency to move things from blfs > -> > lfs 'because we can' - 'because we want to'; it's reminiscent of the deps > 'confusion' in blfs from a bunch of years back, whereby deps were listed > as 'required' because it was thought in some quarters that they really > would in practice be _wanted_ by (some hazy notion of) 'approx-everyone, > shurely?' (the old "well, why would you _not_ want them" disingenuity > that occurs too much in linux areas) - plus another unhealthy does of > 'because we can', 'because we want to'. > > > (OT, but related to linux 'trends': a subnet here has been switched over > to entirely plan9 - full cpu/fs/terminal/&c cfg; been using it natively > (before, just via linux port &c); it might still be the future ... . Btw, > it's ported to raspb-pi (incl raspb-pi-2) and works just fine there too.) > > > > rgds, > > akh > > > > > > -- > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page > Just an idea, why not add information into LFS to list any and all Required, Recommended, and Optional dependencies available in BLFS and out-of-tree?
-Kenny
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
