El Lunes, 19 de Diciembre de 2005 19:38, Randy McMurchy escribió: > M.Canales.es wrote these words on 12/19/05 12:15 CST: > > .- Required: The minimum set of packages that must have installed to can > > build the package. All must be BLFS packages. > > This should not be necessary to define. Simply having packages > listed under a heading that says "Required" is enough.
For consistency it should be defined. If not defined, "Required" could meant also "Required by the BLFS build commands", that is a different thing. > > .- Recommend: Packaged required to can have the basic/common features > > expected by the users. All should be BLFS packages and the build > > instructions should assume that has been installed. > > Here is where Tush and I disagree with the direction the "Recommended" > dependencies has gone. Who decides what is "basic/common features > expected by the users"? Until now has been decided by the package's editor, including you, with good criteria. The list of current packages with recommended dependencies is long: ~/jhablfs/commands$ grep -rl "RECOMMENDED" . ./postlfs/linux-pam ./postlfs/heimdal ./postlfs/vim ./general/librsvg ./general/imlib2 ./general/imagemagick ./general/tidy ./general/sysstat ./general/hal ./general/gcc ./general/php ./basicnet/ethereal ./server/leafnode ./server/openldap ./x/qt ./x/pango ./x/gtk2 ./kde/aRts ./kde/kdelibs ./kde/kdebase ./kde/kdeadmin ./kde/kdenetwork ./kde/kdepim ./kde/kdemultimedia ./kde/kdegraphics ./kde/kdeutils ./kde/kdeedu ./kde/kdesdk ./kde/kdevelop ./kde/kdewebdev ./kde/kdebindings ./kde/kdeaccessibility ./kde/kdetoys ./kde/kdegames ./kde/kdeartwork ./kde/kdeaddons ./kde/kde-i18n ./gnome/gnome-desktop ./gnome/gnome-media ./xsoft/AbiWord ./xsoft/gimp ./xsoft/evolution ./xsoft/koffice ./xsoft/openoffice ./xsoft/mozilla ./xsoft/thunderbird ./multimedia/vorbistools ./multimedia/transcode ./multimedia/cdrdao ./pst/cups For example, in HAL you place PCIUtils as a recommended dependency, but libusb as optional > > .- Optional: The rest of build-time dependencies. Can be external > > packages and could have their needed configure switches discussed in the > > "Commands explanation" section. > > I disagree that packages other than the one the page is for should > be discussed. Each page (package) in the BLFS book is a description > of that specific package. Why would we consider adding information > about other packages to the page? If a package not in the BLFS book > needs to be described, then it should get its own page. Optional > packages not in the book simply need to be listed. I believe that is > how it is now. I'm spoking about the current optional configure switches discsussed on several package's pages to add support for optional dependencies (or to dissable recomended ones). -- Manuel Canales Esparcia Usuario de LFS nº2886: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org LFS en castellano: http://www.escomposlinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com TLDP-ES: http://es.tldp.org -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
