I've just tested my lxde scripts (I thought I had archived most of them, but apparently not, so I've been testing/updating them in qemu session before I try 7.7). Several times, I have noticed vala creeps in as "recommended", but the package built although I do not have it and did not add any switches such as --disable-vala.
But now, my attention is on lxsession (I did not check the deps, until configure failed because my old script had not looked for libunique - perhaps I had already built xfce the previous time I tried lxde). And then I saw that vala is required by lxsession. Fortunately, that is untrue. I'm usually happy to accept people's judgement that an addition can be beneficial enough to make it recommended, or to recommend something if we otherwise have to add a switch to change the default, but I think I have to question what is going on when strictly unnecessary packages are labelled as "required". I guess that somebody here, or perhaps somebody who fed patches in, is a vala enthusiast ;) Alternatively, perhaps this is a problem with continually rolling forward the versions on an existing system ? I understand as well as anybody that it can often be hard to decide if a dependency is required or optional when it is already present, and perhaps at one point vala really was assumed/needed by these packages. But my current impression is that the book seems to have a number of unnecessary dependencies. ĸen -- Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady. Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
