The real question isn't one of trimming dependencies but of trimming features/functionality. If you're going to have a deficient (compared to existing package in terms of "whatever the removed dependency would allow") library, I think you need to use a different install_name. Otherwise you break packages that need/expect that functionality and users who want it (i.e., rightly expect that a certain packagename will not regress in new releases). Our experiment (if you can call it that) with -ssl variants that installed the *same* install_name with different features was something of a nightmare for users and maintainers. Essentially you'd fork the dependency tree and then have *independent* -nox and normal (or -qt3 and not, or whatever) variants that are self-consistent (not "foo|foo-nox" crossovers). As an added benefit, those who care about having such a thing can work on it in *their own packages* and those who don't want to see it or are happy maintaining their packages as-is just don't use it at all and don't need to alter *their* packages.
For cases where the dependencies (NB: I'm lumping Depends and BuildDepends together per others' comments) are only for front ends, those can sometimes be spun off into separate .info files. We do have several successful cases of doing this kind of thing. Of course, it depends strongly on how intertwined the build of the front-end vs lib is. dan On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 12:53:51AM +0900, Tomoaki Okayama wrote: > Thanks for comments. For your comments 1), actually, > you (James) and I opened the similar discussions > in this mailing list last year: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.macosx.fink.devel/16300 > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.macosx.fink.devel/16734 > > 8 months ago and 5 months ago... :-( > > I just followed original packaging way basically, to be > simple and easily accepted by the maintainer (drm). > > The comment 2) does not have an effect on users, so I feel > it's a matter of preference of the maintainer. > > As for the comment 3), I would leave it to the maintainers. > > To be specific, the present situation is: > - libdjvulibre15-shlibs > BuildDepends on x11-dev, but not Depends on x11-shlibs. > - openexr > BuildDepends on x11-dev, AND ALSO Depends on x11-shlibs. > > So, the shortest way is to remove openexr from Depends of > imagemagick-nox, which is my patch. But in James's approach, > both libdjvulibre15-shlibs and openexr don't have dependency > on x11 anymore. I prefer James's approach rather than mine. > (This is my own personal feeling, and I would like to leave it > to the maintainers to judge it.) > > > Thanks, > Tomoaki Okayama > > At Sat, 3 Jan 2009 23:47:49 +1100, > James Bunton wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 06:00:46PM +0900, Tomoaki Okayama wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I renewed finkinfo for imagemagick and imagemagick-nox, and attached. > > > If they look good, I would like to commit them to 10.4/unstable. > > > The differences from the ones in unstable are as follows: > > > > > > [imagemagick.info] > > > * SplitOff files that depend on gnome-related packages; > > > only three files: svg.a, svg.la, and svg.so. > > > See also gimp2 and gnuplot, which excellently divide > > > packages into two: gnome-dependent and gnome-independent. > > > > > > [imagemagick-nox.info] > > > * openexr depends on x11. Deleted. > > > * Sync with imagemagick.info. > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Tomoaki Okayama > > > > Thanks for doing this work. I too would like to see the imagemagick > > BuildDepends and Depends a little lighter :) > > > > I have a few comments: > > > > 1) > > libdjvulibre15-shlibs, which has a BuildDepends on qt3, is dependency > > of imagemagick-nox. This has the unfortunate side-effect of requiring > > X11 and all of qt3 to build imagemagick-nox. You may want to consider > > removing djvulibre in the -nox version too. > > > > 2) > > Why are imagemagick-nox.info and imagemagick.info two separate files? > > This seems to be the case for the current fink release too. Isn't the > > point of the %type stuff to make this unnecessary? > > > > 3) > > Another approach to making imagemagick-nox lighter would be to remove > > the dependencies on X11 from openexr and libdjvulibre. This is what I've > > done in my own private fink package repository. See here: > > http://delx.net.au/hg/finkinfos/raw-file/d0af189cd42a/main/finkinfo/libdjvulibre15-shlibs.info > > http://delx.net.au/hg/finkinfos/raw-file/d0af189cd42a/main/finkinfo/openexr.info > > http://delx.net.au/hg/finkinfos/raw-file/d0af189cd42a/main/finkinfo/openexr.patch > > > > --- > > > > James > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Fink-devel mailing list > Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel -- Daniel Macks dma...@netspace.org http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
