akhiezer wrote:
In light of the new instance, 'Getopt/Std.pm', pointing to the general
issue of how much to include in the version-check page: I'd agree
broadly that one doesn't want to treat libraries/&c (if at all) in the
same way as the other 'main' items in version-check.
If they are to be omitted, then maybe a small para/item on the page
noting the issue, could be useful; although it too perhaps could
'tend[s] to confuse more than it helps'. Maybe just say something
that includes s'thing like, roughly, "[...] most testing with full,
and not heavily-modified, installs of the main well-known distros;
and less tested with other distros or roll-your-own systems.
Yes, I was thinking about doing something like that.
However, staying with the 'include-all' idea for a moment: might
version-check be extendable and generalised to a './configure ...'-style
test for what's on the host-os system -vs- what is known to be required.
I think that would be overkill. One advantage with the current system is
its transparency. It should be pretty obvious what we are doing.
configure is relatively opaque.
The current check works for most people. The only ones it seems to fail
are those users that do unusual things. It is easier to handle one-off
issues individually as they come up.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
