> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 11:55:29 +0200 > From: Thanos Baloukas <baloukast...@sch.gr> > To: blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] libreoffice-4.0.1.2 withought cups > > On 03/29/2013 08:05 AM, Armin K. wrote: > > On 03/29/2013 06:49 AM, Thanos Baloukas wrote: > >> libreoffice-4.0.1.2 compiled here with no cups installed, > >> with --disable-cups. Maybe cups could move in optional deps. > >> > >> Thanos > >> > > > > Well, it's Office suite and one of the office tasks is "Printing" ... We > > have many apps recommended, but have explanations how to disable them if > > desired. I can add --disable-cups to such explanations. > > > > I understand that, but cups is in required dependencies. > > Thanos >
Without wishing to 'hijack' a thread, or resume a possible controversy, could the present policy on required/recommended/optional classification of dependencies, be clarified, please, if possible? Thanks. I know there's been some contrary opinion in the past about what each category should actually mean, and under what circumstances would a package be marked as e.g. 'required' while some thought it should be just 'recommended strongly'; or a package marked as required because, although not required technically, a view in some quarters was taken that 'why would you _not_ want the package present'; and so on. Part of the reason for asking is for doing and maintaining some reliable automated analyses of chains of deps in blfs: it would be good to know how much one can rely on strict categorisation in the source xml. Thanks, akhiezer -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
