On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 08:01:18PM +0000, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
> On July 30, 2019 2:21:49 PM CDT, Jean-Marc Pigeon via blfs-dev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> before my original post: Tried --without-jdk, no luck
> >>> your suggestion is a good one, --without-java allow me to go
> >further.
> >>>
[...]
> >
> >My way I would say (from BLSF prospective).
> >If a package is implied by the proposed build context (autogen.sh or
> >configure arguments), then the said package is mandatory/required.
> >
> >If the reader do not want some proposed build context and "mess" with
> >book directives he is on its own.
> >The book mantra is "If you follow given instructions, you should have
> >our same result".
>
> No to all above. I believe you are trying to look at it from a functional
> perspective, where the book only looks at technical requirements.
>
> Maybe this helps: It is not _required_ to have Java to build LO, it will
> build just fine with an in-tree binary (or even without now days, IIRC, but
> loses severe functionality), but Java is needed to use the instructions that
> BLFS has _recommended_ for minimum expected functionality.
>
From memory, there was a complaint (about non-working database, I
think) when we didn't include the java deps. For my own builds
(most recent was 6.2.3.2) I only need the work processor and
spreadsheey, so I omit java and the --without-java build was fien
for my needs.
OTOH, I had another build issue with that (xmlsec1), will be
interested to see if htat problem has gone with current versions.
ĸen
--
One pill makes you larger, And one pill makes you small.
And the ones that mother gives you, Don't do anything at all.
Go ask Alice, When she's ten feet tall.
-- Jefferson Airplane, White Rabbit
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
