On 23.10.2016 12:36, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
On 23/10/16 01:56, Christoph Willing wrote:
Who is going to decide REQUIRED vs OPTIONAL for the many (I suspect) non
obvious cases? Presumably the maintainer. If a maintainer's balance of
REQUIRED/OPTIONAL deps doesn't suit someone else's
On 23/10/16 01:56, Christoph Willing wrote:
Who is going to decide REQUIRED vs OPTIONAL for the many (I suspect) non
obvious cases? Presumably the maintainer. If a maintainer's balance of
REQUIRED/OPTIONAL deps doesn't suit someone else's particular
needs/wants, then the builder will have to
> I just wanted to talk about an ~OPTIONAL tag in *.nfo
> for better organized optional dependencies than checking
> each time the README. I'm not trying to force anyone,
> just wanted to discuss this.
>
> Something like CONFLICTS in *.nfo could be a good thing
> too, or not?
>
>
On 10/23/2016 03:08 AM, King Beowulf wrote:
> Some of you will just have to do some real work on your own.
> For example, MOST of the slackbuilds I pull from SBo for my use are
> customized. Perhaps I need a non-default function, or to drop a
> function/dependency I can live without. I'm not
On 10/22/2016 04:56 PM, Christoph Willing wrote:
> On 23/10/16 09:26, Thomas Szteliga wrote:
>> On 10/22/2016 07:28 PM, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
>>> Something that is not required, shouldn't be flagged as required as long
>>> as it makes sense.
>>> But your proposal to forcibly disable building
On 10/22/2016 05:17 PM, Thomas Szteliga wrote:
> Just a short review:
>
> http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/BooleanDependencies
>
> "Requires, Recommends, Suggests, Supplements, Enhances, Conflicts"
>
>
>
> Weak dependencies
>
> In addition to the strong dependencies created by
Just a short review:
http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/BooleanDependencies
"Requires, Recommends, Suggests, Supplements, Enhances, Conflicts"
Weak dependencies
In addition to the strong dependencies created by Requires, there are 4
dependencies that are completely ignored by rpm
On 10/23/2016 01:56 AM, Christoph Willing wrote:
> Who is going to decide REQUIRED vs OPTIONAL for the many (I suspect) non
> obvious cases? Presumably the maintainer. If a maintainer's balance of
> REQUIRED/OPTIONAL deps doesn't suit someone else's particular
> needs/wants, then the builder will
On 23/10/16 09:26, Thomas Szteliga wrote:
On 10/22/2016 07:28 PM, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
Something that is not required, shouldn't be flagged as required as long
as it makes sense.
But your proposal to forcibly disable building against usbredir is viable.
If it solves your problem, then ask
On 10/22/2016 07:28 PM, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
> Something that is not required, shouldn't be flagged as required as long
> as it makes sense.
> But your proposal to forcibly disable building against usbredir is viable.
> If it solves your problem, then ask the maintainer to add it.
> You can
On 22/10/16 14:33, Thomas Szteliga wrote:
On 10/22/2016 09:39 AM, King Beowulf wrote:
qemu README already mentions spice and usbredir as optional
dependencies. spice-gtk README also mentions usbredir as an optional
dependency. Perhaps a more precise wording can ovoid confusion.
I suggest that
On 10/22/2016 09:39 AM, King Beowulf wrote:
> qemu README already mentions spice and usbredir as optional
> dependencies. spice-gtk README also mentions usbredir as an optional
> dependency. Perhaps a more precise wording can ovoid confusion.
> I suggest that the OP should assume that an optional
On 10/19/2016 11:50 PM, Willy Sudiarto Raharjo wrote:
>> Maybe the *.nfo files should be extended by listing optional
>> dependencies, so we could handle these an automated way?
>
> NO
> REQUIRES in .info should only be used for mandatory dependencies, not
> optional dependencies.
>
>> Another
> Maybe the *.nfo files should be extended by listing optional
> dependencies, so we could handle these an automated way?
NO
REQUIRES in .info should only be used for mandatory dependencies, not
optional dependencies.
> Another subject are dependencies required only during build-time
> vss
On 10/20/2016 01:23 AM, King Beowulf wrote:
> Usbredir is not a "hard" dependency that prevents qemu from compiling.
> Rather, it is an optional dependency to add functionality. This is
> mentioned in the README.
I'm aware, but without usbredir virt-manager becomes kind
of unusable. I remember
On 10/19/2016 03:26 PM, Thomas Szteliga wrote:
> Hello,
>
> shouldn't usbredir be listed in REQUIRES of QEMU and spice-gtk?
>
> Because when QEMU is compiled without usbredir present
> (autodetected during compilation) virt-install usage will
> be problematic or even impossible.
>
>
---
Hello,
shouldn't usbredir be listed in REQUIRES of QEMU and spice-gtk?
Because when QEMU is compiled without usbredir present
(autodetected during compilation) virt-install usage will
be problematic or even impossible.
This won't work without usbredir:
# virt-install \
--connect
17 matches
Mail list logo
