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"?

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.

Podofo-users mailing list

Reply via email to