Em 27-12-2013 13:03, Bruce Dubbs escreveu: > Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> Em 27-12-2013 09:26, Pierre Labastie escreveu: >>> Hi, >>> >>> As you may have seen, I have added xorg-env as a dependency of xbitmaps. But >>> since xbitmaps is required by Xorg applications, which also requires >>> mesalib, >>> which requires xcb-proto and the like, it may be not necessary. However, >>> theoretically, a user following the dependencies for X server backward may >>> end >>> up building xbitmaps as the first package in the X chapter (I agree that the >>> probability is small). >> >> I would keep it as you modified (actually, I missed that, when studying >> the problem). >> >>> Furthermore xscreensaver requires only Xorg >>> applications (well, that is king of weird to me, but Armin has arguments >>> about >>> the server running remotely). In this case, the probability is slightly >>> higher. >> >> This should be fixed to include the whole xorg as required runtime >> dependency. >> >>> >>> There is also something which bothers me: when a dependency refers to X >>> Window >>> system, where should the user begin? The id "x-window-system" refers to the >>> beginning of the chapter, but nowhere it is said what should be built to >>> get a >>> working X installation (actually, the xcb-util-xxx packages are not needed >>> for >>> a basic installation, and neither are xclock, twm, xterm nor xinit, although >>> the last four are useful to do the first tests of Xorg). >> >> I had the same problem, when fixing fop, earlier today, and did what >> thought was best. But a better definition of a working xorg for runtime >> dependencies would be good, perhaps it is just xorg-drivers or xinit? > > I think we may be getting too carried away with this. For the vast > majority of users, they will build Xorg in sequence from Introduction to > Testing. Handling other situations seems to be overkill. Sure, twm may > not be needed, but it really doesn't hurt. When the package needs Xorg, > just saying Xorg should be enough. Which piece(s) is/are not that > important. >
LOL. OK, let us not be carried away. Actually, the main problem leading here was not user errors, but devs complaints. >>> BTW, shouldn't twm be added to the deps of xinit, at the same level as xterm >>> and xclock? Right now xterm and xclock are "required (runtime only)", and >>> twm >>> is not mentioned. Strictly speaking, none of the three are required, even at >>> runtime: you could build another terminal (say rxvt), forget about xclock, >>> build another WM, and start them in ~/.xinitrc. Of course, If you keep the >>> defaults, xclock, xterm and twm are started by xinit? So I suggest to put >>> them >>> as "recommended (used by default at runtime)". >> >> Perhaps. >> > > I don't think so. The book has had the same general layout since about > 2004 and this is really the first time it's come up. Advanced users > should know enough to be able to make changes on their own. If not, > they should just follow the book. I really agree that modifications of the book's layout should be completely avoided. I promised Pierre to not change his modifications in subversion, but every time I look at that page, I see that it is inconsistent with the rest of the book. To Pierre: please, I would like you to agree with me and then I would modify back subversion format (not dependencies nor technical parts). -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
