Le 01/03/2015 02:07, Ken Moffat a écrit : > On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 12:40:47AM +0000, Guy Dalziel wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 06:23:24PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >>> Guy Dalziel wrote: >>>> My logic in this case is to try and expand on the educational nature of >>>> the book. Bruce is right, of course, that we can't account for every >>>> single contingency such as "compiling package x against package y and >>>> then against package z in the light of a full moon", but I think it >>>> might be good to at least explain why a recommendation is made. >>>> >>>> As developers it's easy for us to understand the logic behind the >>>> recommendation to the point that it almost seems obvious, but when >>>> approached with fresh eyes the logic of installing that package is >>>> simply that "it was recommended to do so". Once the logic of a >>>> recommendation is shown a person can then make an informed choice about >>>> whether to follow that recommendation or not. >>>> >>>> I feel that this would add value without being too much extra work. >>> >>> Guy, You used to be an editor. How about sending a patch to show us what >>> you mean. >> >> Indeed I was. Work and life got in the way of things a bit but I'm >> getting back into doing things from scratch. Give me a few days to dust >> off the cobwebs and I'll see what I can come up with. > > We already do this in some places, e.g. xsoft/other/gimp.xml for > pygtk.
And we very often give the switch to allow building without recommended deps in "command explanations" (together or not with the reason why we consider the dep as recommended). I would suggest to do that in the present case. Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
