"Ian D. Leroux" <idleroux%fastmail.fm@localhost> writes: > On closer inspection, there are about 30 configure warnings for > packages that the configure script tries to autodetect and does not > find. This raises two questions: > - Is there a clear policy I should follow in deciding which of these > optional dependencies to supply, which to turn into package options, > and which to disable altogether? Or should I just use my best judgment > and then see if somebody complains? There is no clear policy because it's really a case-by-case decision. The big considerations are that for an option leaving something out means binary package users don't get it, and including it means everyone has to have the dependency. It's also perfectly fine to disable unusual optional stuff until someone wants it and then they can send a patch with an option. And if you can't see anyone not wanting something, just leave it on. > - For dependencies which we opt not to supply, is it better to > explicitly disable features with arguments to the configure script (so > that "make configure" runs without warnings), or to allow the configure > script to look for them in the build environment and fail (for brevity). I lean towards explicitly disabling them, not so much to quiet the warnings, but as a clue to the next person to read the Makefile that omitting the dependency was an explicit choice.
Attachment:
pgp07AccWdaWW.pgp
Description: PGP signature