> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 02:33:12 -0800 > From: Kenneth Harrison <[email protected]> > To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] pcre > > 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 . . > > > > 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 . . > > > > 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? >
Yes, like in blfs. (There is of course a deps-like page in lfs, but referring only to within-lfs packages). Just to perhaps clarify, the (separate tho' related) main point that I was meaning to make, is that the info concerning 'pcre' (for example) gets ripped out of _other_ (non- 'pcre') pages in blfs - i.e. from the pages of packages that had listed 'pcre' in their deps section; iow, such pages then no longer list 'pcre' as being any sort of dep. rgds, akh -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
