Ken Moffat wrote these words on 02/25/09 14:01 CST:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 06:32:56PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
See above. And this is how we do it in most of the BLFS packages
where a dependency is soley used to build a sub-part of the package
that nothing else in the book depends on.
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Graphviz itself could take someone a week just to nail down all the
dependencies for a full build. Bruce owns the ticket, but I've now
got all the data for Graphviz, so I'll probably be adding to that
ticket that I can do it right now.
I've been very busy with work. If
Hi all,
This is mostly to Ken, as he created the Jasper page, but anyone else
with comments are welcomed to reply.
My question is:
Why are the dependencies of Jasper recommended instead of optional?
I perhaps can see libjpeg support being recommended, but I cannot see
why. It is linked to the
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:08:17PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Hi all,
This is mostly to Ken, as he created the Jasper page, but anyone else
with comments are welcomed to reply.
My question is:
Why are the dependencies of Jasper recommended instead of optional?
To me, they look like
Ken Moffat wrote:
I can also understand _never_ recommending dependencies. Ever.
that isn't how BLFS currently works.
Why? What's wrong with an editor recommending a dependency? It's basically
saying that the package will have significantly (in the editor's opinion) less
functionality or
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 02/24/09 16:54 CST:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:08:17PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote:
Why are the dependencies of Jasper recommended instead of optional?
To me, they look like a good idea.
This is a technical book. Could you provide some technical details
why
Randy McMurchy wrote:
What would it matter? x86 is x86. But for the record, no.
Umm
[gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3
i686]
Doesn't much look like LFS-6.4. ;-)
-- DJ Lucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous
DJ Lucas wrote these words on 02/24/09 19:04 CST:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
What would it matter? x86 is x86. But for the record, no.
Umm
[gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux
2.6.14.3 i686]
Doesn't much look like LFS-6.4. ;-)
What's with the Umm...
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 02/24/09 18:32 CST:
Ken Moffat wrote these words on 02/24/09 16:54 CST:
rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.24] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686]
11:55:00 up 17 days, 4:18, 1 user, load average:
