[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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:

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: