1 |
Mike Gilbert posted on Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:04:02 -0400 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera |
4 |
> (klondike) <klondike@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>> So, is there any reason for this behaviour? Shouldn't build |
6 |
>> dependencies either be cleaned with --depclean after building or be |
7 |
>> upgraded to avoid possible issues? |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> |
10 |
> I agree: with-bdeps should either default to y or n across the board. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I understand the idea behind turning it on for depclean to reduce the |
13 |
> amount uninstalls/re-installs, but I think that really just introduces |
14 |
> more confusion than the time savings is worth. |
15 |
|
16 |
FWIW, --with-bdeps is a relatively new portage option. AFAIK it was |
17 |
added during the period when the docs team was pretty much just a single |
18 |
person, who was getting further and further behind and was understandably |
19 |
burnt out, but being the only person available, he remained at his post |
20 |
tho I'm sure he would have MUCH rather done something else. |
21 |
|
22 |
That's probably why there's no mention in the docs other than the portage |
23 |
manpage. Now that we have swift back, he's applying some much needed |
24 |
attention to the docs tree and its coming back into shape. =:^) |
25 |
|
26 |
So yes, I'd suggest a handbook update is in order. Well, either that, or |
27 |
arguably, a tweak of the portage defaults. But of course Zac's the guy |
28 |
who knows most about that, and why the defaults are what they are, so |
29 |
he's the one that needs to answer on that angle. |
30 |
|
31 |
Meanwhile, thanks for bringing it up, klondike. =:^) |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
35 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
36 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |