From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Hoffmann Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:44:15 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] gnuplot : new package In-Reply-To: <20130104172643.72321640@skate> References: <1357311193-31887-1-git-send-email-viallard@syscom-instruments.com> <50E6F604.4000401@relinux.de> <20130104172643.72321640@skate> Message-ID: <50E714EF.4090102@relinux.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Am 04.01.2013 17:26, schrieb Thomas Petazzoni: > Dear Stephan Hoffmann, > > On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:32:20 +0100, Stephan Hoffmann wrote: > >>> +GNUPLOT_CONF_OPT = --without-x \ >> is there a special reason for this? Why not build with x, when X11 is >> configured in buildroot? > I guess because Anthony didn't need X support. It is not because a > given software component can potentially support feature Y or Z that we > require the package submitter to support all those features Y or Z. It > would put way too much load on the initial package submitter. Hello Thomas, maybe my question was not clear enough. I just wanted to know if this option is really required. > Instead, we prefer having small packages that only support the features > that have been tested by the submitter, and that carefully disables all > the unsupported features. And then, as features are needed by other > people, they can submit additional patches to make those additional > features work. O.K., I didn't realize that even when configure finds out that no X11 is present --without-x is needed for this reason. For the records: I made a quick test without X11 and it fails to compile without this option. > Anthony: a gnuplot patch without the X support is perfectly acceptable. Of course, this is my opinion, too! I really like seeing it included! Kind regards Stephan > > Best regards, > > Thomas -- reLinux - Stephan Hoffmann Am Schmidtgrund 124 50765 K?ln Tel. +49.221.95595-19 Fax: -64 www.reLinux.de sho at reLinux.de