Re: Solving recursive dependency disease in KDE-based packages

2005-12-13 Thread Nathanael Nerode
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Regenerating acinclude.m4, aclocal.m4, configure.in, and finally configure, >> can be a pain in the neck. In some packages, it's done by Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: >autoreconf ? NO NO NO. That does not work for these KDE-based packages, w

Re: Solving recursive dependency disease in KDE-based packages

2005-12-11 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Regenerating acinclude.m4, aclocal.m4, configure.in, and finally configure, > can be a pain in the neck. In some packages, it's done by autoreconf ? > In my experience the redefinition of AC_FOREACH sometimes fights with the Any such redefinitions

Re: ldd -u (Re: Solving recursive dependency disease in KDE-based packages)

2005-12-11 Thread Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > * 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 is invaluable. > > This seems like not the case _at all_ to me (the "invaluable" bit): Yes, it definitely gives lo

Re: ldd -u (Re: Solving recursive dependency disease in KDE-based packages)

2005-12-11 Thread Darren Salt
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 is invaluable. > This seems like not the case _at all_ to me (the "invaluable" bit): >

Re: ldd -u (Re: Solving recursive dependency disease in KDE-based packages)

2005-12-11 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 05:02:15PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 04:56:08PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > > * 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 is

Re: ldd -u (Re: Solving recursive dependency disease in KDE-based packages)

2005-12-11 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 04:56:08PM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * 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 is invaluable. > > This seems like not the case _at all_ to me (the "inva

ldd -u (Re: Solving recursive dependency disease in KDE-based packages)

2005-12-11 Thread Adeodato Simó
* 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 is invaluable. This seems like not the case _at all_ to me (the "invaluable" bit): % ldd -u /usr/lib/amarok/amarokapp Unused direct dependen

Solving recursive dependency disease in KDE-based packages

2005-12-11 Thread Nathanael Nerode
Most KDE and KDE-dependent packages have an 'admin' directory with various evil and unnecessary files in it. I think I've found a recipe for removing the recursive dependencies from such KDE packages. (1) Relibtoolizing. This is much trickier than normal. First install Debian's libtool and auto