Subject: Re: RFC: recommended dependencies (diffs attached)
To: grant beattie <grant@NetBSD.org>
From: Rene Hexel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/08/2004 22:43:46
On 08/01/2004, at 4:23 PM, grant beattie wrote:
>> - Introduce a new variable, RECOMMENDED, that has
>> the same syntax as DEPENDS.
> the word "RECOMMENDED" in this context, at least to me, says that
> the dependency is optional but recommended (ie. the pkg would build
> without it), which isn't exactly what you're getting at. I don't have
> a better word suggestion, but I'm sure there is one.
Well, the idea is that RECOMMENDED works in conjunction with
DEPENDS. I.e., you would still have (need) a proper DEPENDS
line as well. E.g., for tiff you would have
The first line sets the (technical) dependency, the second
line sets the recommendation (if you want to make sure
binaries are consistent).
> there was talk about introducing optional dependencies some time ago.
> I fear that "recommended" and "optional" having different fundamental
> meanings would cause chaos. :)
I think the name for that was "SUGGESTED". And yes, that
would have different semantics.
I don't mind different names if somebody comes up with
something. OTOH, as long as there is proper documentation,
I don't think too strongly about the names.