Jim Ramsay wrote: > Olivier Crête wrote: >> On Thu, 2007-10-05 at 14:20 -0400, Patrick McLean wrote: >>> Jim Ramsay wrote: >>>> 1) Create a single local USE flag (flashsupport or something) >>>> that will just pull in this dependency. >>>> >>>> 2) Use the same set of USE flags as libflashsupport has, with any >>>> of them adding libflashsupport to the dep list, since these are >>>> all global flags and will most likely be enabled for both >>>> netscape-flash and libflashsupport >>>> >>>> I'm personally thinking (1) is the better of the 2 options, but >>>> I'd like to know if anyone has any other wondrous solutions to >>>> this. >>> Does/will anything else dep on flashsupport? If not, why not just >>> add the USE flags to netscape-flash and install libflashsupport as >>> part of the netscape-flash install instead of a separate package. >> If its a separate package that will be updated separately, then it >> doesn't make sense to put it in the separate package and I support >> option 1. Otherwise, if they'll always be together, then just put it >> in the same package. > > Yes, libflashsupport is distributed separately and is on a different > release schedule than netscape-flash. > > I suppose I could also propose: > > 4) netscape-flash just RDEPENDS on libflashsupport all the time. It's > certainly not a large library to be added on. >
That is a terrible idea. Don't make it "depend" on something that it clearly does *not* depend on. Flash works just fine without the optional add-ons, and those are *definitely* optional. I've never needed libflashsupport and would prefer not seeing useless cruft attached to a perfectly working Flash installation. If you're going to add it to USE, then make sure it's *not* on by default, thanks.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
