Randy McMurchy wrote:
Chris Staub wrote these words on 01/23/06 19:33 CST:
and any "Recommended"
package dependencies should state *why* there are "Recommended".
I agree with this, kind of. However, this question was asked long
ago in this thread, and answered. See the response about OpenSSL.
Summary is, what is different with saying something is recommended
as opposed to giving the explanation *why it is recommended*?
Sure that information would be nice. But it is expensive. Good
text describing research takes time and effort. You simply are
asking too much for Editors to do this when the whole point is
*We recommend you install X, Y, and Z*.
Are you saying that we shouldn't recommend this stuff,
*even though we know it should be*, because we don't have the
time, inclination, desire or skill to describe it?
I don't think *anyone* reading this thread would agree with that
statement. And to me, summarizes this the whole thread.
Didn't you just say earlier that I should submit patches to the book
(which I would gladly do) if I believe text should be added? It wouldn't
necessarily be you doing all of the work. Besides, you've said yourself
that a lot of "Recommended" dependencies are "recommended" by the
package maintainers, so "Recommended by the developer" should be
sufficient for many packages, correct?
Of course, another option would be to drop the concept of "Recommended"
altogether - or reserve it only for "Recommended by the developer"
dependencies." Would certainly simplify things...
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
