On 20-02-2015 03:02, Ken Moffat wrote: > 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 >
ĸen, I don't remember moving vala between categories in lxde. I understand that unlike the other build you did, this lxde is working, if so I am glad. I did not understand if you are also implying or not that libunique is required by lxsession. Anyway, please, fix these dependencies in the book, whatever you do, I agree. Please, -- []s, Fernando -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
