Re: A plan to get rid of unnecessary package dependencies
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:57:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 11:09:37AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:29:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > > But folding it into shlibdeps at least would remove all those warnings
> > > > that were created by shlibdeps.
> > > What warnings were created by shlibdeps? I'm not sure what you're
> > > referring to here.
> > Sorry. I had a short look at some packages and all redundant
> > dependencies were created by shlibdeps. It doesn't seem to make sense to
> > have a list by maintainer when the dependencies weren't added by
> > him/her. Or did I misunderstand what this discussion is about?
> Yes, I'm afraid you did. The behavior of dpkg-shlibdeps is correct: it
> documents the packages that must be present on the system in order for the
> binaries to work. The bug we're discussing happens at the ELF linker level
> -- you can't have dpkg-shlibdeps decide to ignore some of these libs,
> because the *binary* still embeds references to them and if they're missing,
> the binary will not work.
> So the fix is to get our binaries to stop embedding references to libraries
> they don't need, then dpkg-shlibdeps will do the right thing automatically.
A first step in that direction would be to fix .la, .pc and -config
files so that they only give the needed libraries.