Subject: Re: RFC: recommended dependencies (diffs attached)
To: grant beattie <>
From: Rene Hexel <>
List: tech-pkg
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

BUILDLINK_DEPENDS.tiff=	      tiff>=3.5.4
BUILDLINK_RECOMMENDED.tiff=  tiff>=3.6.1

  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.