On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:08:10PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> > On 27/09/2011 18:09, Andrew Benton wrote:
> > 
> >> It seems that glib-2.30.0 requires libffi and python.
> > 
> > Thanks for the heads up.  I'm not actually that bothered by those 2 
> > dependencies.  libffi has no dependencies itself, and Python has no 
> > mandatory dependencies, so it's only 2 packages that need to be added. 
> > And let's admit it, Python is pretty much unavoidable these days anyway.
> > 
> > I'm not sure whether we want to do this upgrade prior to LFS-7.0 or not, 
> > but seeing as there's a bunch of upgrades pending anyway, I guess we 
> > could squeeze it in.  I'll wait for Bruce to chip in though, as I know 
> > he's conscious of the gradual package creep.
> 
> Yes, we're getting bloat inserted by upstream:
> 
> Pkg-config
>    -> Glib
>       -> PCRE
>       -> libffi
>       -> python
> 
> All for a program that is 3500 lines of code.  :(
> 
> Can Glib-2.30 be built without libffi/python?
> 
>    -- Bruce
> 
 All my recent desktops have libffi because it is needed for
gobject-introspection in recent gnome packages.  My old server
doesn't have it, so a quick first test with glib-2.28.7 (which I had
to hand) showed I could move python and python2.x so that configure
didn't find them, and it configured happily.

 So, I downloaded 2.30.0 - can't get very far in configure, I don't
have intltool on the server.  So, it looks like intltool will be
required, I can't tell if libffi and python are optional or
required.  On a desktop, most people need intltool for one of the
xorg packages, but on a server I really can't see the point.

 In terms of bloat, this is starting to really suck.  I remember
reading the discussion about adding glib to the book, but it seems
to be the thin end of the wedge.

ĸen [ or 'ken' for Bruce ]
-- 
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to