Re: ldd -u (Re: Solving recursive dependency disease in KDE-based packages)
I demand that Adeodato Simó may or may not have written...
> * Nathanael Nerode [Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:35:41 -0500]:
>> To work out which libraries you're linked to which you don't actually
>> need, ldd -u <executable or library> is invaluable.
> This seems like not the case _at all_ to me (the "invaluable" bit):
> % ldd -u /usr/lib/amarok/amarokapp
> Unused direct dependencies:
[snip; list contains some libs which _are_ directly used by the binary]
> If this has an explanation (other than bogus ones like "some other
> dependency links against libpq.so.4", which I don't think it's the case,
> but mentioning as an example), please be my guest.
<AOL>. Doing that for gxine causes libxine and libsmjs (for example) to be
listed, and I don't see anything else which gxine requires which uses them.
> For now, I plan on sticking to Henning Makholm's "libneeded" lintian check:
[snip]
A link would have been nice, although this happens to be trivially findable.
For the record, it's the subject of <URL:http://bugs.debian.org/340934>.
--
| Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington,
| sarge, | youmustbejoking | Northumberland
| RISC OS | demon co uk | Toon Army
| Let's keep the pound sterling
2*1=2. 2/1=2. Therefore, * and / are the same operation.
Reply to: