On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 10:13:13PM -0600, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> Jean-Fran?ois Mertens wrote:
> > On 12 Nov 2007, at 04:50, Jean-Fran?ois Mertens wrote:
> 
> > this _ i.e., use this, so it would require pkg maintainers to edit  
> > correctly
> > their  .la files  _ lost dream ...   :)
> 
> Well, it would be a pain, assuming nobody edited their .la files, but
> many used the dead strip dylibs flag, the number of BuildDepends would
> not be reduced, but the Depends: line could be reduced dramatically.

Does stripping down a package's Depends even help on the binary side
either? The Depends' Depends would still be there, so the
indirectly-linked libraries would still be needed and their -shlibs
packages would still be indirect dependencies of the package. The main
gain would be when a mid-level library stops using some low-level
library as its back-end...high-level stuff wouldn't list the low-level
lib, so these hidden changes wouldn't affect dependencies (build or
run) of the high-level things.

dan

-- 
Daniel Macks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel

Reply via email to