Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 04:40:11 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.port.mk Message-ID: <20070807184011.GN1224@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20070807145123.yb3dqjojk08s40wg@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20070803125410.GB1062@tirith.brixandersen.dk> <200708032144.57558.lofi@freebsd.org> <20070803204215.GA68620@rot26.obsecurity.org> <20070806074318.q9mw6ulngg00gwsw@webmail.leidinger.net> <20070806065634.GA31676@rot26.obsecurity.org> <20070806113855.0fcq213io0www04k@webmail.leidinger.net> <46B7072E.8070307@freebsd.org> <20070807111509.ojm8nc4ao0g080ck@webmail.leidinger.net> <46B84C78.3030009@freebsd.org> <20070807145123.yb3dqjojk08s40wg@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2007-Aug-07 14:51:23 +0200, Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net=
> wrote:
>ports. But for some ports you can get the benefit immediately. I hope you=
=20
>are not too biased regarding KDE. Yes, KDE and such would benefit by a hug=
e=20
>amount by this, more than smaller ports, but even for the "small"=20
>dependency trees this can result in nice improvements.
I can see the speed advantage in your suggestion: Modular X has
definitely resulted in massive bloat in dependencies with simple X
clients needing 60-70 dependencies. This is _very_ noticable when
registering a package on a slow system.
I'm less convinced that it is possible to automate the process.
>A list of libs for the given binaries:
>---snip---
>#!/bin/sh
>
>for i in "$@"; do
> objdump -x "$i" | grep NEEDED | awk '{print $2}'
> shift
>done | sort -u
>---snip---
This won't detect dynamically loaded libraries. mplayer appears to
dlopen() codecs. Further investigation might reveal other examples.
>Putting the XORG problem aside, I think you assume there is more work=20
>required than will be necessary. I think there will be a lot work required=
=20
>in the beginning (if a maintainer wants to improve immediately on his own,=
=20
>but then he is responsible for his own time management), but then it is no=
t=20
>that much work.
My concern is that this is all manual effort and, so far, I haven't seen
anything that would let (eg) pointyhat automatically verify that the
dependency chain is correct. Given the situation where A depends on B
depends on C but the Makefile for A does not list C as a direct dependency,
how does pointyhat verify this is correct?
--=20
Peter Jeremy
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGuLyL/opHv/APuIcRAsMFAKCHHh0fcDOvNienYqyLY0NFmdCB+QCdG/MM
4qvqv8Dlgu5Lv7hTeem9Uuo=
=mTNE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--zhXaljGHf11kAtnf--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070807184011.GN1224>