Re: xlib6g now depends on xfree86-common (?)
On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Some people even decry the fact that xlib6g has to be installed at all,
> with some justification. If they never use any X clients, the X libs just
> take up space. But policy says (rightly, in my opinion) that we shouldn't
> built two versions of packages that support X and non-X interfaces.
Actually, I am glad that you mentioned policy, because I was going to
quote a small part of it:
4.7 Programs for the X Windows system
Some programs can be configured with or without support for X Windows.
Typically these binaries produced when configured for X will need the
X shared libraries to run.
Such programs should be configured with X support, and should declare
a dependency on xlib6g (for the X11R6 libraries). Users who wish to
use the program can install just the relatively small xlib6g package,
and do not need to install the whole of X.
This clearly suggests that xlib6g should be the *only* thing needed by a
user who wants to use emacs or ghostscript without X.
I do not decry the fact that xlib6g has to be installed at all, but if you
make it to depend on yet something else, then you are breaking this
"91d68600ca8e7f9ce606a15f97da1830" (a truly random sig)