Re: Opt out style recommends
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 08:34:24AM +0000, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2016-04-09, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote:
> > I disagree that we need a new field: Simply lower to at most suggest the =
> > daemon: It is for the daemon to declare a stronger dependency.
> > Anyone needing the daemon can install the daemon - you shouldn't expect =
> > libraries to pull in daemons (just as you shouldn't expect documentation =
> > to pull in binaries).
>
> Sometimes, the daemon is an implementation detail of the library. Or a
> hard requirement for the library to function. Sometimes it is even a
> hard requirement for the library to not crash.
Right, it may be a hard requirement for the library. It may be not a
requirement for an user of the library, if that library is pulled only
for an obscure feature. The problem is, dependencies are transitive.
And in most languages it's tedious to make a library optional at runtime.
So some solution would be nice, be it Russ' new field or my moving such
dependencies away from libraries.
--
A tit a day keeps the vet away.
Reply to: