Ken Moffat wrote these words on 11/15/10 15:09 CST: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:17:08PM -0600, Randy McMurchy wrote: >> William Immendorf wrote these words on 11/15/10 13:21 CST: >> >>> Well, I personally think that x264 should go into the book mainly >>> because if the book says that a dep is required or recommended, it has >>> to be in the book. >> Yes, this is typically the policy. Which package recommends x264? >> > ffmpeg, as of when I put 0.6.1 in
Thanks, Ken. And yes, BLFS has become a dependency beast, but not because BLFS has really changed, it is all the upstream devs that think adding additional functionality (and thus more dependencies) make their packages better (and they probably do). It is almost "work" now to build a pure BLFS desktop. There are just so many dependencies. The servers aren't so bad, but desktop utilities have just grown enormously. I like the approach that the unixODBC folks went with. They yanked out all the Qt and Testing Framework stuff and created new packages. This solves circular dependencies. Oh well, sorry for the rant. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [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] 15:45:00 up 13 days, 22:39, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
