On 16-09-2014 11:10, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 08:40:12AM -0300, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> On 15-09-2014 22:55, Ken Moffat wrote:
>>>
>>>  And perhaps we are getting a little too free-and-easy with what
>>> goes into 7.6 - it is good to know of this dependency, but as you
>>> say there are pros and cons.
>>
>> The reason I modified it, was not just because I wanted to.
>>
>  That comment of mine was actually aimed more generally - at new
> versions of packages getting ticketed for 7.6.  Some of these will
> contain important fixes, others will contain less-important fixes
> (updated translations - low risk, but perhaps there are other
> changes not mentioned and which might cause trouble).
> 
>> During the discussions (dev and ticket, IIRC), it was mentioned not only
>> once that SQLite should be removed from Tcl, either because we do it
>> with other packages, or because ArchLinux developers do it. Then, I
>> concluded we were facing a bug in BLFS and it should be urgently fixed
>> before the 7.6 release, and used ArchLinux as example.
>>
>> So, it was not a free-and-easy decision, I think.
>>
> 
>  I agree with your analysis.

Thanks.

>> After David (who I much respect and like, and am forever in debt, after
>> he fixed LO) mentioned the problem with that solution, I asked him if
>> other possibilities could be considered. As of writing this message,
>> still got no reply.
>>
>> The reversion I did yesterday is not my preferred one, just wanted to
>> run out of the problem. But in my particular machines, I will *remove*
>> SQLite from Tcl, because to the best of my knowledge, the own developers
>> fear it and *it is useless*, perhaps something they are developing for
>> future use.
>>
> 
>  For me and my machines, TCL in BLFS has exactly one use - to enable
> gitk (and I don't use that often).  So, I'm not too concerned about
> it.  Sqlite, OTOH, is a basic part of desktop infrastructure and we
> prefer the system version.
> 
>  I'm sure the subject will come up again, and at that time I might
> be less willing to go with "leave it as it was".

I need tk.

Thanks for your reply.


-- 
[]s,
Fernando
-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to