Sorry for the late reply, still going thru some old mail that I received while on vacation.
On 8/25/05, Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ldd in-of-itself is no indication that a package is actually a > dependency. Libtiff could have easily been called into the build > because it was a library dependency of some *other* package that > was used in the build. Then libtiff would show up in ldd, but > never actually was a direct dependency of the package being built. As Matt said, readelf is a good way of knowing. Though it won't tell you if the dependency is a required one or an optional one. > > It almost comes down to trusting the developer. If the docs say > package A is a dependency, and configure checks for it, we gotta > believe that it is used, if found. For packages that are autotooled, configure checks are a pretty good indication on what is needed for the sytem, though in rare cases there may be false positives (may be a package was needed before, but is not needed anymore but the developer forgot to remove the check) but the false positives can be easily eliminated by verifying that the library/executable was used during the make phase. One small gripe, in rare cases I have seen packages that *require* a particular package but the configure does not fail if the dependency is not found. But the make stage fails because it fails to find the headers/libs! -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
