Le 20/02/2015 07:02, Ken Moffat a écrit :
I've just tested my lxde scripts (I thought I had archived most of
them, but apparently not, so I've been testing/updating them in qemu
session before I try 7.7). Several times, I have noticed vala creeps
in as "recommended", but the package built although I do not have it
and did not add any switches such as --disable-vala.
But now, my attention is on lxsession (I did not check the deps,
until configure failed because my old script had not looked for
libunique - perhaps I had already built xfce the previous time I
tried lxde). And then I saw that vala is required by lxsession.
Fortunately, that is untrue.
I'm usually happy to accept people's judgement that an addition can
be beneficial enough to make it recommended, or to recommend
something if we otherwise have to add a switch to change the
default, but I think I have to question what is going on when
strictly unnecessary packages are labelled as "required". I guess
that somebody here, or perhaps somebody who fed patches in, is a
vala enthusiast ;)
Alternatively, perhaps this is a problem with continually rolling
forward the versions on an existing system ? I understand as well
as anybody that it can often be hard to decide if a dependency is
required or optional when it is already present, and perhaps at one
point vala really was assumed/needed by these packages. But my
current impression is that the book seems to have a number of
unnecessary dependencies.
ĸen
I do agree that required dependencies should be for packages which
prevent the build to complete, whatever switch we use in configure.
Otherwise, if a special switch is needed, but we do not want to use
it for whatever reason, the dep should be recommended.
But the problem is for runtime dependencies.
We do not have something clear in the book for that, although it
may be an important information for the user. I guess the person
who put vala as required had runtime in mind, or thought that
lxsession needed some gnome app at runtime (I have never tested
LXDE/XFCE so I cannot tell whether this is the case here).
Some packages seem to have a new paragraph in dependencies (required
runtime). I wonder whether we should systematize that.
Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
