On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 13:24 +0200, Matthew Brincke wrote: > What do you think about calling such a package > a "hidden optional dependency"?
Hi, I agree it's kind of hidden, having it mentioned in the README isn't enough to make it better visible (as proved here). Would the terminology change anything? I doubt it. Pietro was able to find an example for his needs, but he didn't notice how to make it compile. That's all. There's no need to invent new names which will be forgotten sooner or later. I didn't mean my initial reply as an insult against you, it only surprised me that PoDoFo (or any project) would include sources, which it never builds. It happens, yes, though quite rarely, I believe (like some parts can be compiled only during "make test/check" or such, thus they are still buildable). As it surprised me I tried to search for it. Rather than inventing new terminology, and especially when the Boost is optional, what about get rid of the WANT_BOOST and let it always try to find & build with Boost, or even better add WITHOUT_BOOST (or similar name), to give a chance to people to disable boost usage if needed, even when required development files for boost would be available. That would make Boost a real optional dependency. By the way, PoDoFo's README covers many interesting things, from my point of view. Good job of its author. Bye, zyx _______________________________________________ Podofo-users mailing list Podofoemail@example.com https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users