2007/11/22, David Zeuthen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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.
I don't think it's a meaningful distinction. If a software can build and operate without the dependancy, it's more like "recommended software" than a real dependancy. Blessed dependancies should IMO be always considered hard, there shouldn't be a need to bless them if they're not... > Ideally, in the place where we enumerate the soft deps, an explanation > of what value/features the soft dep adds is listed. As said, I'd call that list "recommended software" and keep it totally separate from the dependancy list. These are of course, just my two small units of currency. -- Kalle Vahlman, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Powered by http://movial.fi Interesting stuff at http://syslog.movial.fi _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
