[Bug 1682] RFE: Mentioning optional dependencies

bugzilla at linuxfromscratch.org bugzilla at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Jan 23 14:37:30 PST 2006


------- Additional Comments From matthew at linuxfromscratch.org  2006-01-23 15:37 -------
(In reply to comment #3)

> Now comes the question of whether you should mention all "optional"
> dependencies, or just all the ones that are not listed in LFS. For example,
> inetutils and module-init-tools *can* use zlib, but it's not required.

I think the approach should be:

1) Those dependencies that break the build if not present should be listed in
the current "Installation depends on:" section.  Also in this section should be
dependencies that, regardless of their being optional or otherwise, have already
been installed by LFS by the point at which the dependent package is being
built.  Add also those dependencies that although optional, are strongly
recommended by upstream and/or the LFS community.
2) Any other dependencies that don't fit the criteria in 1. should be listed in
an "Installation optionally depends on:" section.

Obviously, if we encounter a package whose optional dependency is installed in
LFS but after the dependee (e.g. package B optionally depends on package A but
we install package B first), we need to be very sure we don't want to take the
opportunity to re-order the packages lest we have to continually explain why we
choose not to have package B make use of package A's functionality!

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

More information about the lfs-book mailing list