Bryan Kadzban wrote: > FWIW... > > DJ Lucas wrote: >> Fortunately, that is not a deal breaker for me if the >> readers get the same treatment (which seems to be the case), but this >> does hard code optional dependencies for the pre-packaged installations. >> This is both good and bad. From a development standpoint, it won't take >> me a week to build a fairly standard system to test a simple package >> upgrade, but that still means manual (or maybe only partially automated) >> builds for omitting optional deps in the build process up to the point >> that I need. > > This exact reason, for the record, is why I really dislike binary > distros. I *never* choose the same set of dependencies that are > optional in the source, as the distro does. And because when they ran > ./configure, they added a --with-foo flag, the package compiled with > -lfoo, meaning the binary version of the package now has a hardcoded > requirement for libfoo.so.N or whatever it is.
I agree with this. I am updating vim in BLFS to add current patches and do not like all the xorg dependencies in vim. Others may want gvim. There are a lot of decisions that must be made in BLFS about dependencies. It's difficult to provide a package manager that does not take away the user's choices. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
