| 1 |
On 10 February 2016 at 02:22, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> I can certainly see the benefit here, but wouldn't that still result |
| 3 |
> in (arguably) unnecessary (re)builds? If implemented well it'd also |
| 4 |
> result in depcleaning them when they're later unneeded, too, so I |
| 5 |
> guess it's a wash in that sense. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
For me, its worth it, because the effort I spend to manually dep-clean |
| 9 |
use flags I don't need at present is far higher than any |
| 10 |
automated cost of rebuild will burn me. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I've even recently started using `--with-bdeps n` in conjunction with |
| 13 |
--depclean ( because tip, depclean implies --with-bdeps y ), because I |
| 14 |
don't mind the rebuild cost, and I much more mind the significant |
| 15 |
dependency graph I have sitting around there not earning its weight. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And the beauty of this is you woudn't pay a cent in terms of unwanted |
| 18 |
behaviour from the introduction of this feature unless you explicitly |
| 19 |
used it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You'd have to be intentionally using the lazy-use flags to see the |
| 22 |
undesired rebuild effect, and if that bothers you, its easy to just |
| 23 |
transition a soft-use into a hard use, just like if you don't like how |
| 24 |
depclean nukes a package, you can add it to your world file. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Kent |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL |
Archives