SEO

I was wondering about the relative danger in emerging something
using the nodeps option? I'm a minimalist and don't get certain
tools sometimes based on how much baggage they bring with them.
In example I use blackbox a lot and some tools require major
gnome components.
My understanding was to use the "-gnome" use flag was a safer
way and if I could not get the dependency list down to one
I was happy with I would search for an alternate package.
If you consider nodeps bad then read the appliance article in
the march Linux Journal.
Thanks.
-Walt

PenguinsAnonymous@notAchance.org wrote:
> I was wondering about the relative danger in emerging something
> using the nodeps option? I'm a minimalist and don't get certain
> tools sometimes based on how much baggage they bring with them.
> In example I use blackbox a lot and some tools require major
> gnome components.

This cause it will need those to work.


> My understanding was to use the "-gnome" use flag was a safer
> way and if I could not get the dependency list down to one
> I was happy with I would search for an alternate package.

The -gnome just makes packages where it's optional to build against gnome2 to
not build against gnome2, it won't affect hard dependency, a pacakge that
depends on a gnome2 package will always try to get it installed or fail the build.


> If you consider nodeps bad then read the appliance article in
> the march Linux Journal.

--nodeps can be used if you don't want to force an install of depending
packages, but this can in most cases cause that the build you are doing will
fail. This is more useful if you install binary packages, but those
dependencies you will be missing will lead to features not working in those
binary packages.



--

//Aho

J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
> PenguinsAnonymous@notAchance.org wrote:
>> I was wondering about the relative danger in emerging something
>> using the nodeps option? I'm a minimalist and don't get certain
>> tools sometimes based on how much baggage they bring with them.
>> In example I use blackbox a lot and some tools require major
>> gnome components.
>
> This cause it will need those to work.
>
>
>> My understanding was to use the "-gnome" use flag was a safer
>> way and if I could not get the dependency list down to one
>> I was happy with I would search for an alternate package.
>
> The -gnome just makes packages where it's optional to build against
gnome2 to
> not build against gnome2, it won't affect hard dependency, a pacakge that
> depends on a gnome2 package will always try to get it installed or fail
the build.
>
>
>> If you consider nodeps bad then read the appliance article in
>> the march Linux Journal.
>
> --nodeps can be used if you don't want to force an install of depending
> packages, but this can in most cases cause that the build you are
doing will
> fail. This is more useful if you install binary packages, but those
> dependencies you will be missing will lead to features not working in those
> binary packages.
>
>

Thanks this is what I thought, shocking to see it in LJ.
The author speaks of doing this for 3 packages he installed. The only
thing I can think of that would make sense is these packages chose to
depend things they really didn't need. Knowing this you could safely use
the nodeps but how would you know. Seems to me nodeps is just a bad
practice in general.
Just goes to show you can't believe all that you read.

-Walt

PenguinsAnonymous@notAchance.org wrote:
> J.O. Aho <user@example.net> wrote:
>> PenguinsAnonymous@notAchance.org wrote:
>>
>>> If you consider nodeps bad then read the appliance article in
>>> the march Linux Journal.
>>
>> --nodeps can be used if you don't want to force an install of
>> depending packages, but this can in most cases cause that the build
>> you are
> doing will
>> fail. This is more useful if you install binary packages, but those
>> dependencies you will be missing will lead to features not working
>> in those binary packages.
>
> Thanks this is what I thought, shocking to see it in LJ.

IMO, not really. I've read more than a few bad articles in Linux Journal
(and Linux Magazine) by authors who clearly have little understanding of the
subject they write about. They have some knowledge, but knowledge can never
replace understanding. Then there's articles where the authors make
unstated assumptions that everyone use the same apps they do (like postfix
and vim -- sorry, I prefer exim and nvi). And then there's the unceasing
shilling for OpenOffice.org, which I find rather tasteless. OOo, in
addition to its good features, *is* bloated, slow, and buggy, and I find it
more than a bit dishonest to never mention that. It's almost like if
someone there had a vested interest in promoting OOo...

Linux Magazine (the one that's called Linux Magazine in both the US and
Europe) is even worse, with no upfront distinction about what's open source
and closed source, but they both have had some rather weird articles.

For now, I stick with Linux Pro Magazine (called Linux Magazine in Europe,
not to be confused with the other Linux Magazine) for news and Sys Admin for
the articles. For newbies, Linux Format is possibly a good choice.

> Just goes to show you can't believe all that you read.

If an article hasn't been peer reviewed, expect quite a large amount of BS.

Regards,
--
*Art