On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:47:57 +0200 (CEST) [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Apr 2011, zeljko wrote: > > > On Thursday 14 of April 2011 09:33:03 Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> due to some other topic discussed on the mailing list, I thought I'd check > >> the dependencies of a simple lazarus project. The result is shown below. > >> > >> I did this similar exercise a year or two ago, and the result has more than > >> tripled ! > >> > >> I wonder, why all these dependencies ?? > >> I mean, libselinux, libcairo, libexpat, libdirectfb, libfusion, libdirect > >> (to name but a few), why do I need those ? > > > > You don't but gtk does (or cairo or some xlib). > > Hm. I did a quick check: > > fsb: >ldd /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 | wc -l > 44 > fsb: >ldd /usr/lib/libqt-mt.so.3.3.8 | wc -l > 31 > So Qt needs 31 libs, GTK uses 44. Many of the extra ones related to direct > framebuffer > access, which is total nonsense in a X environment. The gnome projects likes to split libs in smaller modules. The number of libs is not that important. The size is more important: A gtk2 program: ldd testgtk2 | cut -d' ' -f 3 | grep lib | xargs cat | wc -c 14932491 A qt program: ldd testqt | cut -d' ' -f 3 | grep lib | xargs cat | wc -c 53583219 So Qt uses about 50MB, GTK uses 15MB. > Well, this reminds me why I use KDE and not Gnome. > > How complete/stable is the Qt version of the LCL, and what version of Qt is > needed ? It is quite stable. It works well under KDE, not so well under Gnome. But this is not the fault of the LCL qt interface, but of QT. Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
