Randy, I have been thinking about this, and would like to discuss a little more. Believe I did not understand completely, the first time I read.
First, I would like to say that I completely trust developers, ex-editors, editors and some contributors (was going to put this one first, but it could be misinterpreted that "some" was be applied to the others). Therefore, when they report something, my tendency is to fix it immediately, without thinking much. On exception was lsb needed by an lxde package: although completely trusting, I wanted to see with "my very eyes", thanks William I. Also, when an editor fixes something I did, normally, I just accept, exception to statistics, although if it is clearly a typo, I do not mind. Some modifications that Igor did, I accepted, but wanted to discuss, and at the end learned a lot and Igor was right. I really like discussing with Igor, always learn something new that I did not know. And I have to start the discussion, Igor is a "man of few words" (this is an expression in my language, please someone fix to an English expression if you understand what I say and is not usual in English). Armin reported a wrong dependency classification in Midori, I immediately fixed ... Turned out to be a wrong fix. Immediately after, he wrote that two others, in Midori, needed fixing. I misunderstood, did not fix, waited for someone else to do it, fortunately, an update came up, and I removed them as asked. Armin was just wanting to help, thanks, again. So as written below, I just fixed what Randy reported. And these fixes are what I wanted to discuss a little, below. Em 15-01-2014 00:39, Fernando de Oliveira escreveu: >> I am of the opinion that the recommended dependencies are being used >> too often in recent updates to the book. Recommended used to be >> something that was used to indicate that future builds against the >> package would fail if the "recommended" package was not installed. >> >> Now it seems that if a package can use a dependency and that >> dependency provides something useful it is recommended. Why? Can't >> it be like it used to and just annotate it in the optional >> dependencies? I have nothing against it, but since some time, dependencies are recommended, or even required, just due to developer judgement. Take, for example (I only remember that at the moment, by there are others, although, probably in "recommended" - Igor has fixed many) a discussion that has not yet been closed: OpenJDK (I think Nathan is the one that pointed this out). I can build it without PulseAudio, but it is "required", there, because a switch is used in the main text: --enable-pulse-java I only build PulseAudio because of that, and only in my dev systems. Yesterday, updating it, I was thinking if it was time to close that discussion and move it to "optional" and use a switch explicitly disabling it. What you all think about this? Libreoffice has many switches that are used and for them, some dependencies need to be in Recommended. I may be wrong here, writing from memory, did not check with care. >> >> If it really provides something useful, simply add the parameter >> in the command explanations with the explanatory text saying that >> adding it will provide "xyz" support to the package. About the switches that I moved to "Command Explanations", I really wanted to move them back to the main part. It is in Audacious and Sudo. My reason is that many users, in a hurry, seldom read that until after the package is installed, do not go back, and the next builds, they won't read anymore. One of them had the word "optional" just before. So, I would move back, and would cearly state they are "optional". One switch would giv BLFS or anything other that user would want to "audacious --version" (writing from memory). The other one, would give a better propmpt to sudo, and is used in all distributions I have seen, only exception is BLFS. Still it would be cleary indicated as otional, just before. Optional switches are at least in two packages, in the book, one that I remember now is, again, OpenJDK. >> >> I appreciate the work that you do for the book, Fernando, but I >> think that you need to let users decide for themselves what they >> need in each package. The "Command Explanations" section is used >> to provide information for users to decide if they need to install >> a package and add the necessary parameters to the configure command. Thanks, Randy. But if I did the move I described above, it would increase the probability for the use to decide, I think. >> My point being, let the users decide what they want. Yes, I completely I agree, and have modified some parts of the boohk according. >> Recommended >> dependencies should be something that (well, this was just discussed >> in a previous thread) avoids failure in the future. For example, >> years and years ago, Gimp-Print was added as a recommended dependency >> to the Gimp instructions because the editor felt that you needed to >> print some image. >> >> I objected then and still feel the same way. A simple entry into the >> "Command Explanations" lets users know that if they don't install an >> optional dependency, then functionality will be lost. Let them decide. >> >> I hope this makes sense. I feel the users should be the ones that >> make decisions for their systems. Not BLFS developers. Additionally, >> making the users decide what they need (functionality-wise) is much >> better than developers blindly "recommending" packages because they >> feel users "need" it. Completely agree. > Thanks, Randy, > > Fixed in r12579 and r12580. > > I could only remember these two switches and the dependency. > In summary, I wanted three things: 1. Move optional switch of Audacious --with-buildstamp="BLFS" from "Command Explanations" to main, adding before use the word "optional", and explaining the user may customize the value. 2. Move optional switch of Sudo --with-passprompt="[sudo] password for %p" from "Command Explanations" to main, adding before use the word "optional", and explaining the user may customize the value. 3. Move PulseAudio from "Required" to "Optional", move respective switch to "Command Explanations". -- []s, Fernando -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
