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, 11:22, 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