On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 06:12:58AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Peter Wemm wrote:
> > > > > > As far as I can tell, there's nothing in the tree which uses
> > > > > > libss any longer, and hasnt been for quite some time. Is
> > > > > > there any reason to keep it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope.
> > > >
> > > > Right. Kill it.
> > >
> > > Are there any ports which depnd on it, and thus assume it's
> > > in the base system, which will need to be hacked to have a
> > > libss port on which they will need to depend?
> > Well, why not have a look and find out? If so, supplying a list
> > is more productive than making somebody else go and look for you.
> It's not as easy as you paint it, since there are a lot
> of things that run config scripts and just "magically"
> find all sorts of libraries you never knew you had.
> It'd be a heck of a lot easier, if it were possible to
> force everything to link shared, which would show in an
> ldd of all the binaries in all the packages, but that
> would still leave some stuff out. I don't think there's
> an easy way to deal with testing this sort of thing, if
> you don't have a full ftp.freebsd.org mirror, with the
> ability to build each and every port after deleting the
> library and header files locally.
> I just asked mostly because I'm not the person diking it
> out without having checked first, and I remember the last
> time something like this went wrong...
It's no big deal, Terry. If bento turns up packages which are
breaking because they expect libss, then I'll either fix them, or if
it's a hard dependency then I'll import libss as a port.