Libxml2 and Python

M.Canales.es wrote these words on 05/19/06 16:04 CST:

> Based on that, I think that Python should be a
Recommended libxml2 dependency.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, Manuel.
We cannot
legitimately say the Python should be recommended. What if
one doesn't
want to install GNOME (probably 95% of the readers)?

We can't recommend stuff because it will make Jalfs easier.


-- 
Randy

rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.27] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc
(GCC) 4.0.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3
i686]
16:14:00 up 7 days, 8:14, 1 user, load average: 0.15, 0.03,
0.01
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://
www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

El Viernes, 19 de Mayo de 2006 23:17, Randy McMurchy
escribió:

> I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one,
Manuel. We cannot
> legitimately say the Python should be recommended. What
if one doesn't
> want to install GNOME (probably 95% of the readers)?

Then maybe how that optional blocks are written should be
changed. 

I don't see logical to have and Optional block for two
testsuites dependencies 
and other Optional block for one testsuite dependencie plus
a dependency 
required to build a pluging that other BLFS package depend
on, while Python 
is listed in both.

> We can't recommend stuff because it will make Jalfs
easier. 

When you will learn to write properly jhalfs? 

And like I said in PD2, jhalfs can be fixed in other ways.
There is several 
other issues most hard to solve than that.


-- 
Manuel Canales Esparcia
Usuario de LFS nº2886:       http://www.linuxfroms
cratch.org
LFS en castellano: http://www.escomp
oslinux.org/lfs-es http://www.lfs-es.com
TLDP-ES:                           http://es.tldp.org
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://
www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page