RFE: Mentioning optional dependencies

I think this would be a good idea, although we could simply add this to Bug 684, which already exists for documenting package dependencies - just add package's optional dependencies to the list as well.

The general consensus on list was that this is a good idea. So, if anyone has patches that mention particular dependencies I'll gladly accept them. Shadow will use PAM, SELinux and libaudit.

Shadow can also use cracklib (I know it's already mentioned in the book, but I'm just adding it to the list).

Now comes the question of whether you should mention all "optional" dependencies, or just all the ones that are not listed in LFS. For example, inetutils and module-init-tools *can* use zlib, but it's not required.

And on that note, here's a couple more...

Grep can use PCRE Vim can use X

(In reply to comment #3)

Now comes the question of whether you should mention all "optional" dependencies, or just all the ones that are not listed in LFS. For example, inetutils and module-init-tools *can* use zlib, but it's not required.

I think the approach should be:

1) Those dependencies that break the build if not present should be listed in the current "Installation depends on:" section. Also in this section should be dependencies that, regardless of their being optional or otherwise, have already been installed by LFS by the point at which the dependent package is being built. Add also those dependencies that although optional, are strongly recommended by upstream and/or the LFS community. 2) Any other dependencies that don't fit the criteria in 1. should be listed in an "Installation optionally depends on:" section.

Obviously, if we encounter a package whose optional dependency is installed in LFS but after the dependee (e.g. package B optionally depends on package A but we install package B first), we need to be very sure we don't want to take the opportunity to re-order the packages lest we have to continually explain why we choose not to have package B make use of package A's functionality!

Autoconf can use emacs

Coreutils testsuite has at least one test that needs the "Expect" Perl module, which depends on the "IO:Tty" module. Not sure if anyone wants to install 2 Perl modules just to support 1 or 2 coreutils tests, but I'm mentioning it anyway...

Also, autoconf can use automake and libtool in its testsuite.

Adding another...groff can use ghostscript.

less can use PCRE
Bison can use Doxygen in its testsuite

Groff can also use CUPS and X.

Moving this to the Future Milestone. Like #1673, I'll put this information into 6.2 if we can get a complete list in time, but I don't think we should delay a release if this information isn't ready.