[blfs-support] Python vs Python Modules in MesaLib and libxml2 - BLFS 2013-03-18

Armin K. krejzi at email.com
Sat Mar 23 06:05:08 PDT 2013


On 03/23/2013 01:53 PM, rhubarbpieguy at gmail.com wrote:
> On 03/23/13 04:49, Simon Geard wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 16:28 -0500, rhubarbpieguy at gmail.com wrote:
>>> The following Note is in the MesaLib documentation:
>>>
>>> "The libxml2 Python module must have been built during the installation
>>> of libxml2 or else MesaLib build will fail."
>>>
>>> Should it perhaps read as follows:
>>>
>>> "Python must have been built during the installation of libxml2 or else
>>> the MesaLib build will fail."
>> Yes, I see your point... the first wording is a little unclear... it
>> sort of implies that the "libxml2 Python module" is a separate package.
>> Though I don't think your version is quite right either - as read, it
>> suggests that Python is built as part of the the libxml2 install.
>>
>> Hmm.. how about:
>>
>>     "Libxml2 must have been built with Python support, or else..."
>>
>> To me, that puts the emphasis clearly on the libxml2 build, and its
>> optional dependencies.
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> My thinking was to be true to the original wording.  Your version is
> good, but doesn't support mean built?  Would a new user know that? A
> thought would be:
>
> "Libxml2 must have been built with Python support as recommended, or
> else ...
>
> Looking at this further, might we simply delete the note and change
> Python from Recommended to Required for libxml2?  The documentation now
> lists MesaLib-9.1 as required for Xorg-Server.  Libxml2 is required for
> Mesa but must have Python support for Mesa.  If memory serves, previous
> documentation listed Mesa as an option when compiling Xorg-Server.
>

No. You don't get how the book lists the dependencies. Required 
dependencies are *required* for package to build. Without them, you 
can't build the package. Recommended dependencies are dependencies 
without which package can be built, but you will be missing some 
functionality in the package, or some other package will require it to 
be built with "foo" as dependency. We assume recommended dependencies 
are installed unless you know what are you doing. They are not 
recommended without a reason.

> That might be an unfair and technically incorrect bludgeon. Could/would
> someone compile libxml2 with no intention of running X? I don't know.  I
> should leave that decision to those more knowledgeable about X and such.
>




More information about the blfs-support mailing list