On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 22:27 +0100, Andreas Røsdal wrote: > > Why is it necessary for gnome-games configure to fail if GGZ is not > > found? If configure doesn't find GGZ, why not just disable building > > whatever games have hard dependencies on GGZ? Or do all the games now > > depend on GGZ? > > GGZ has already been accepted as a external dependency. See: > http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyone/ExternalDependencies
Hardly a very constructive response. My take is that the list is not accurate; we really should make a distinction between hard and soft deps. Software in the GNOME desktop and platform releases should be able to build without having the soft deps available; yet it's fine for them to fail if it's missing a hard dep. Ideally, in the place where we enumerate the soft deps, an explanation of what value/features the soft dep adds is listed. For example, hal is AFAIK not a hard dep. On the other hand things like libXrender, a compliant C compiler, a POSIX-compliant libc etc. probably is. Notably these are missing from the list; maybe just because it's evident they are hard deps. Which is fine. No reason to state the perfectly obvious. Whether GGZ should be a hard or a soft dep, I don't know. But I know we need to make a distinction. Thoughts? Also, who is maintaining the dep list? I've proposed PolicyKit and PolicyKit-gnome as soft deps but received no response from the maintainers of that list. OTOH, lots of projects seem to want to use PolicyKit at least as a soft dep. Who am I supposed to track down? The release team? Thanks. David _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list