I'm not at all fixated on a minimal package and I resent the idea of putting minimal effort in.
I was purely asking a simple question, there's no need to resort to rudeness.
On 6 Feb 2021, at 11:22, Leo Prikler < leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at> wrote:
Am Samstag, den 06.02.2021, 10:58 +0000 schrieb Ellis Kenyő:
As long as it can reasonably be expected, that users will want it,
yes.
If the soft dependency is indeed completely optional, the software
works perfectly fine without it and few people will be negatively
impacted by a minor feature missing, then it's fine to leave it
as-is
This is the only point I'm making. Things like templates and
encryption aren't used by everyone so could definitely be optional,
so I was asking if there was a simple way to handle optional inputs.
As it doesn't seem like there is I'll just add everything required.
I'd like to say "use your best judgement", but you seem to be a little
too fixated on having a minimal package description (and putting
minimal effort into it). For instance, when the package advertises
encryption, while it is technically optional, shipping it without gpg
would be a grave oversight! (On the other hand, you need not
necessarily have openssl, since encryption requires any of gpg or
openssl, not both.) Same for templates, at least awk is required and
either j2cli or envtpl would be nice to have.
Regards,
Leo
|