Question about optional dependencies

Ken Moffat ken at
Wed Jun 2 03:00:06 PDT 2004

On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Randy McMurchy wrote:

> Rereading my original post, I didn't make myself clear. I too,
> think *all* optional switches should be removed. The advice
> about duplicating the developer's labors made good sense to me.

 I'm all in favour of people doing ./configure --help, but for many
packages and libraries the help is absolutely minimal.  Encouraging
people to build a mostly-usable package is good, showing people what to
add for a fully-usable package is better, leaving people to muddle
through is less good.

 Example - I've noticed the scanner functionality in koffice depends not
only on sane (could probably have guessed that part), but on
kdegraphics-built-on-sane.  The more we can record what optional
switches/packages provide, the easier it is for builders to make an
informed choice and get things right.  Learning from mistakes is one
thing, having to build long sequences of packages two or three times to
get it working is quite another (/me glances angrily at gnumeric).

 If BLFS cuts out the optional switches and explanations then it might
as well re replaced by the hints.

 das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list