Ken Moffat wrote:
> I can also understand _never_ recommending dependencies. Ever.
> that isn't how BLFS currently works.
Why? What's wrong with an editor recommending a dependency? It's basically
saying that the package will have significantly (in the editor's opinion) less
functionality or usefulness without the dependency, but its not required for
the
build.
There are lots of places in both LFS and BLFS where we make recommendations.
One of the most basic is which packages are installed in LFS (e.g. vi vs emacs,
bash vs another shell, etc).
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
