Juergen Daubert [2008-05-01 18:52]:
On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 04:52:29PM +0200, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Is there a formal definition of what the "Nice to have" field should contain? [...] yeah, it's not official, [...] The "official" wasn't really where I wanted to go... is there a definition of what should go to the "Nice to have" / "Optional" line? i.e. should only be ports that you can install without changing the build() function, or would you also allow dependencies which would then require the build() function to be adjusted? What if a developer can't test it (i.e. for a non-gnome user, if gnome could be an optional dep), should it be added? What if the developer thinks it's not "nice" to have, although it adds "functionality"? Even with all optional deps, should a port still be simple/debloated, or would you add every possible
Hi, On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 15:45:32 +0200, Jose V Beneyto wrote: optional dependency? What about the minimal version, should it be as plain as possible, or provide a set of functionality the packager considers sensible?
TBH I don't know why/who/when this field was introduced. And TBH I don't like it at all. In many cases it's not really maintainable,
You're referring to "Optional", right?
cause the maintainer isn't able to test all the possible options a program is providing, e.g php or apache. So, keep it simple and don't try to mimic Gentoo's use flag in a strange manner.
Apparently Danny started using Optional as an alias for nice-to-have. So it's a different name for the same thing, and apparently it's not supposed to introduce pkginfo-i-grep-something games in build() per se. Regards, Tilman -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?