Re: sorting through xlibs-dev dependencies?
El ds 18 de 12 del 2004 a les 22:39 +0000, en/na Helen Faulkner va
escriure:
> Hi,
>
> I hope this isn't a too dumb question!
>
> I'm the maintainer for xwrits, and partway through the NM process. My
> application manager (Frank Lichtenheld) has sent me a review of my packages,
> and I am confused about one of the things he suggested I do.
>
> xwrits currently depends on xlibs-dev. Frank suggests that I replace that
> with only the needed dependencies.
>
> What I am confused about is how to tell what it really needs and what it
> doesn't really need. I don't know that much about X, in general. xlibs-dev
> seems to be a package that does nothing but depend on a collection of many
> different X libraries. But I don't know what all those libraries do (and
> no, I don't want to read the code for all of them!).
>
I use this trick:
# Here's a hack you can use to find out which packages your package
needs to be built:
strace -f -o /tmp/log ./configure
# or make instead of ./configure, if the package doesn't use autoconf
for x in `dpkg -S $(grep open /tmp/log|perl -pe 's!.* open\(\"([^
\"]*).*!$1!' |grep "^/"| sort | uniq| grep -v "^\(/tmp\|/dev\|/proc\)" )
2>/dev/null|cut -f1 -d":"| sort | uniq`; do echo -n "$x (>=" `dpkg -s
$x|grep ^Version|cut -f2 -d":"` "), "; done
I think it could help you :)
> So, the only thing I thought to do is
> a) look at every header file that is #included in the xwrits code
> b) use dlocate or similar to see which packages all those headers are in.
> c) make xwrits build-depend on those packages.
>
> But this will take me quite a long time. I wondered if I am missing
> something obvious and there is a better way to do it. Or am I on the right
> track after all.
>
> Now, obviously, I don't want someone to actually tell me which things I
> should be build-depending on. I want to know how to work out such things
> for myself in the future :) (It would also defy the point of my AM asking
> me this.) But I would appreciate a hint...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Helen
>
>
>
Reply to: