| 1 |
El sáb, 16-06-2012 a las 19:50 +0200, Peter Stuge escribió: |
| 2 |
> Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Also hit this problem today while trying to bump bluez and noticed we |
| 4 |
> > are using elog messages to tell people to manually install |
| 5 |
> > net-dialup/ppp if they want ppp working with bluez. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I am unsure about the disadvantages of simply using, for example, |
| 8 |
> > "ppp" USE flag to do that. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I guess the point is that it is not really a dependency. bluez works |
| 11 |
> fine without ppp, it does not need to be rebuilt to use ppp later, |
| 12 |
> and ppp is only needed when user wants to use both together. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No, it's a dependency only when you want ppp support working, if you |
| 16 |
won't use it, you won't simply notice it won't work due missing |
| 17 |
dependency |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I think it fits to emerge them separately. It seems reasonable not to |
| 20 |
> USE for other packages which are merely possible to combine, but |
| 21 |
> which don't make for a strict dependency. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> > 1. We rely in people reading the message to get package working ok. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> I dunno if a USE flag is much better? Both require the user to inform |
| 27 |
> herself in the same way ("when do I need USE=ppp for bluez" vs. "when |
| 28 |
> do I need to emerge ppp") and take action in the same context (set |
| 29 |
> USE=ppp for bluez vs. emerge ppp after bluez).. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
It's much easier to widely set "ppp" USE in make.conf to be sure ppp |
| 34 |
support works for all things in my system that needing to rebuild |
| 35 |
affected package to see elog message telling me that I need to manually |
| 36 |
emerge some other package |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> > 2. If user emerges ppp, it will be recorded in world file and, then, if |
| 39 |
> > in the future he removes bluez, emerge --depclean want clean no longer |
| 40 |
> > needed ppp and then, people end up with a lot of packages they needed |
| 41 |
> > to manually emerge some year but that they problem no longer need at |
| 42 |
> > all. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Disk is pretty cheap. If the package is never being used and the user |
| 45 |
> doesn't care to remove it then the package doesn't do any harm IMO, |
| 46 |
> and as mentioned I think it's difficult for the package manager to |
| 47 |
> know what the user has installed on the system but no longer needs.. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> //Peter |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
What kind of argument is "disk is pretty cheap". I still administrate a |
| 53 |
laptop with a 250GB of disk space, and that space cannot be as large if |
| 54 |
you have a lot of files at home. Also, you are missing that having |
| 55 |
unneeded packages in world file will also cause them to be updated on |
| 56 |
every system updated, with the time it takes for compile. |
Archives