[Slackbuilds-users] Optional dependencies in info file

[Brenton Earl]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


This would require that package managers be added the feature that
enables them to look at the optional line as well.  They would need to
have the ability to ask if the optional dependencies are added and
which specific deps depending on which features are required.
Furthermore, the package managers would need to know how to switch on
those features or the SlackBuilds would need to have an additonal hook
that tells the package manager what to do with those optional deps.

On 11/29/2015 10:45 AM, Andrzej Telszewski wrote:
> On 29/11/15 18:41, Petar Petrov wrote:
>> do you suggest that all dependencies are listed in the REQUIRES
>> field or that there is a new field eg OPTIONAL introduced?
>> 
>> for example in case of EMBOSS:
>> 
>> REQUIRES="jdk"
>> 
>> OPTIONAL="clustalw primer3"
>> 
>> 
>> On 29/11/15 17:56, Willy Sudiarto Raharjo wrote:
>> 
>> What do you think about putting optional (available from SBo) 
>> dependencies in the info file? I think that would allow for
>> further automation.
>> 
>> What I have noticed is that, it's sometimes hard to go through
>> the README and spot all the optional deps, because everybody 
>> writes README as she/he sees fit.
>> 
>> Also, I don't know how, but it could be possibly worth if all
>> the variables (like ENABLE_FOO=yes, DISABLE_BAR=no) could be 
>> gathered in one well structured place.
>> 
>> This thoughts came to me when I wanted to build 'ffmpeg'. Well,
>> not all of those thoughts, because SlackBuild for 'ffmpeg' is 
>> actually well written.
>> 
>> But if some more rigid structure, possibly easily understood by 
>> computers, was enforced, it could make users' life easier.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
>> 
>> It's really up to the maintainer to set which deps should go
>> into REQUIRES since he/she is the one knows best about it. We
>> only make sure that it builds normally with all the deps
>> mentioned on the README.
>> 
>> my personal thought: I like to keep the packages minimum and list
>> all the optional ones in the README. I don't want to have a
>> bloated systems with all deps are listed just to satisfy minor
>> functionality
>> 
>> 
>> Well, your the boss;)
>> 
>> What do you mean by bloated system? If the optional deps are
>> placed in the info file, then automated tools can benefit from
>> that. It's still up to the user to decide if she wants them.
>> 
>> Putting optional deps in info makes just for easier processing,
>> I don't see any possibility of bloating here.
>> 
>> And SBo maintainers could declare that optional deps are not
>> tested.
>> 
>> What do you think?
>> 
> 
> I meant something like OPTIONAL="clustalw primer3".
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWWzs+AAoJEMAWbOXyIOfznxEH/AkRAMz1mmYLs8EeuWT3j7Tn
+5a6KUPv/+s7kOKqZoY63OHsDBMljqE+MYH3YCLrJQxdjw4HbQN3rvi9G5er8fgF
D4xcwlSgpdTAIEziANvuJXTJYggJwfmM29inWWswGyXKtbNwic6qkfoS3r2V9Ooe
+XfdE198k6pRPOItg6wgVFgOFgug+mwKif6S+MfvvHFWjLHScBppOspExoN9KKm6
Gw6GswwVmZRZ5CY0ZkSCRuXIEQh7x06F/ArfT+oTRm3pRN4MqQ8k9VpLxdyilrk2
5uxcBIpuj50bfRIY71GEyssX81RBlXdCCwje7xwXani1bK8KDyRzevY15Hmzk6Y=
=b+er
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----