On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 09:10:58 -0800 "Dan Nicholson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/8/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think deps. that are needed for testsuites could be labeled as > > being "optional" (notice I already started doing that for a few > > packages) but you could do the same with several others. For > > example... > > I saw that and started making those same changes in my sandbox. > However, this could become pretty ugly. Perhaps if there was a > separate Optional Dependencies heading. Or Testing Dependencies. Or, > since LFS doesn't include that many packages, we could make a single > page with a table that lists all the deps. I think this was already > suggested before. > > Just for the case of automake and it's ridiculous test suite > dependency list, some sort of policy needs to be decided on. For now, > let's continue putting in the deps as they've been found. We can > always change the appearance later. > > -- > Dan > -- > http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page why not follow the gentoo aproach? separate depedencies for what they are needed: runtime, build and testsuite ? -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
