Even better of course would be if we had a way to have the benefits of the current proposal without its drawbacks (or at least w/o the major drawback, namely burdening developers).
If I understand what was brought up earlier, the idea was that if you do:
fink install foo-dev
...it will keep the dev around, since it was explicitly requested, but if you do:
fink install bar
...and bar depends on foo-dev (and foo-dev has never been manually installed), foo-dev would get removed again upon completion of the build.
It seems like that would handle your concerns, would it not? Developers would explicitly install the package, people building something else from source would get extraneous stuff removed again when they're done.
It would be easy to track such things ("did the user explicitly ask for this BuildDependsOnly package on the command line?") I would think.
-- Benjamin Reed a.k.a. Ranger Rick -- http://ranger.befunk.com/ gpg: 6401 D02A A35F 55E9 D7DD 71C5 52EF A366 D3F6 65FE * porthos grumbles ... stinking virus writers <slackd> it's not so much the virus writers out there as it is the high-quality virus-reading software people have installed today
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
