On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:59:15 +0300, Guillem Jover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 02:19:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> On Thu, 24 May 2007 20:26:00 +0200, A Mennucc said: >> > hi what about http://rerun.lefant.net/checklib/ ? >> >> > madcoder mentioned in >> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/01/msg00822.htmlof the >> > intention of getting the checklib service up again: any progress? >> >> Most of the incantations of checklib did so on a per binary object >> basis -- which is useless in packages like fvwm, that have gazillions >> of plugins generated from the same CFLAGS in a global makefile. If >> some binary in a .deb needs it, a library can't be eliminated from >> build depends, so the lib minimization can't be done. > I don't think it's completely useless, it is for the purpose of > reducing Build-Depends, but those plugins/programs are linking against > stuff they don't actually need, and those libraries are loaded w/o a > reason. Reducing run-time "bloat" is good as well, I'm willing to fix > those bugs on my packages and feed the fixes upstream! You do not understand the problem here; as the last incarnation I looked at, it was indeed completely useless for things like fvwm -- since it worked on a binary by binary basis, instead of a per package basis. Since we do build depends on a package by package basis, looking at dependencies of individual binaries is not good enough. Say a package as bin-foo, bin-bar, and bin-baz. They build depend, respectively, on libfoo-dev, libbar-dev, and libbaz-dev, respectively. When checklibs was run, it would report libbar-dev, libbaz-dev, unneeded; looking at foo libfoo-dev, libbaz-dev, unneeded; looking at bar libfoo-dev, libbar-dev, unneeded; looking at baz End result: Uneedded: libfoo-dev, libbar-dev, and libbaz-dev Since that is patently wrong, the version of checklibs I looked at produced meaningless output -- for any package that had shared objects whose compile flags were not identical. >> Has this been fixed in the latest incantation? > Please "fix" this by adding an additional mode/view, not replacing the > current one. Er, why? I have a working version that works on a package basis, not on a binary by binary basis, and it was a few lines of simple shell scripting. Also, if I recall correctly, the original script was in python. I don't do python. The original site where I got the old implementation (http://greek0.net/div/checklib.tar.gz) from is 404's now; the alioth checklib project has published nothing. First rule of free software: publish early, publish often. manoj -- During the voyage of life, remember to keep an eye out for a fair wind; batten down during a storm; hail all passing ships; and fly your colors proudly. Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/> 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
