Am 01.01.2004 um 08:51 schrieb Benjamin Reed:
Max Horn wrote:
Even better of course would be if we had a way to have the benefits of the current proposal without its drawbacks (or at least w/o the major drawback, namely burdening developers).
If I understand what was brought up earlier, the idea was that if you do:
fink install foo-dev
...it will keep the dev around, since it was explicitly requested, but if you do:
fink install bar
...and bar depends on foo-dev (and foo-dev has never been manually installed), foo-dev would get removed again upon completion of the build.
Yes, that's how I understood it, too (after Ben's email to explain that this is the idea). And that part now makes sense to me, too.
It seems like that would handle your concerns, would it not? Developers would explicitly install the package, people building something else from source would get extraneous stuff removed again when they're done.
No, it wouldn't, because that's not my concern :-). To quote myself:
My concern is that (as I understood it) Martin suggested that we could start doing things in Fink which rely on all the buildonly packages being removed. However, if we did that, we'd run risk that those changes may break for people which *do* have buildonly packages installed. So either we do not start making changes that rely on it, or we have to accept that certain people will have to do some extra work in some cases, in order to keep their Fink installation going.
Once again: I don't claim that this is the absolute truth, this is just how I take what Martin wrote, I don't mind learning that I misunderstood something. Nor do I say that this is a show stopper, or insurmountable. I merely bring up an issue. If it's trivial in the end, great! If not, let's at least talk about it.
To sum it up: what you describe above sound OK to me now (removing the buildonly stuff unless it was explicitly installed etc. - in fact, I see no reason why we should stop at BuildOnly packages. Why not also remove everything else which is not needed as a dependency, too, i.e. all BuildDepends which aren't needed anymore?). But I am not sure if we can/should take advantage of it in the form of relying on buildonly package to be always removed, as was suggested, too.
It would be easy to track such things ("did the user explicitly ask for this BuildDependsOnly package on the command line?") I would think.Yup, it would. See also debfoster (or was it deborphan?) for a similar strategy.
Cheers,
Max
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
