Dieter Baron <dillo@danbala.tuwien.ac.at> writes:

> In article <rmiirdeyyft.fsf@fnord.ir.bbn.com> Greg wrote:
>
> : As a general rule I think that packages (without a LICENSE tag) should
> : not depend on packages with a LICENSE= tag unless it is really
> : necessary (meaning the package would be not useful, or less than 50%
> : as useful) without them.  (It would make sense to have a PKG_OPTION to
> : indicate that one wants the dependency, but I think simply not present
> : is better than simply present.)
>
>   I agree.  However, if providing such an option is easy, please do.
> Some peoople value functionality over licesnse purity.
>
> : So, I'd like to drop the lame bl3 line from sox's Makefile, assuming
> : it still builds (in process).  Any objections?
>
>   Yes, please make the dependency optional, don't just remove it,
> causing a regression.

Regression is relative; from my view the regression was lame being
added and breaking the build, relative to the previous working package
(that apparently didn't have mp3 support either).  But at the same
time your point is valid.  The options framework is sufficiently well
thought out that I was able to add an option with only a few minutes
work.  Please take a quick look; I haven't made options very often.