On 03/02/2018 16:59, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Pierre Labastie wrote: >> On 03/02/2018 11:09, Armin K. wrote: >>> On Sat, 2018-02-03 at 09:49 +0100, Pierre Labastie wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I do not know why Armin, at revision 10159, promoted a bunch of >>>> dependencies >>>> from optional to recommended, but it seems some of them should have >>>> stayed >>>> optional: >>>> [...] >>> >>> Huh, that was quite long time ago. I was still new then, so I probably >>> thought "these packages aer very common, why not have this >>> functionality?". From memory, it took me quite some time to get all the >>> "Required", "Recommended", and "Optional" stuff. >>> >>> Anyway, I trust your judgement, so you should do what you think is >>> best. >>> >> >> Forgot to say that I do trust your judgment too (actually that's the reason >> why I mentioned your name), since I think you have much better technical >> skills than I do. But having all those libraries as recommended create >> unneeded circular dependencies, specially when it comes to building >> documentation stuff (doxygen at least). Maybe we could recommend to build a >> "pass 1" graphviz without any of those deps, then to build libraries needed >> for builder's use, then rebuild graphviz... > > I like your first suggestion a lot better. Please revert the dependencies to > optional. Add extra parenthetical comments as you deem appropriate. >
I meant to add the second sugestion, not to remove the first suggestion. Graphviz is a complex package. Neither online nor shipped doc is up to date. Giving indications to the user of what is needed for what might be appreciated. Pierre -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
