Fernando de Oliveira wrote: > 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).
Yes, although it looks nice, it needs to be consistent with the rest of the book. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
