why so many dependencies?

i3839 · 2005-02-01 21:31:23

demonus wrote:

true true, there would be no problem if programmers would provide us witch such features as for instance gkrellm developers
apps should use dynamical libraries or whatever you call them (say plugins) that enhance capabilities... but in the meantime as very few apps actually use plugins

The apps should link at runtime to other libraries which they need for certain extra features. It's a nice extra if the part of the program implementing those features and using those libs as a plugin, but the first goal is get the app just starting up when some redundant external libraries aren't present.

Dusty · 2005-02-01 21:50:34

I'd also like to point out that IgnorePkg can be used to keep from updating dependencies you never use once they are installed. This saves a lot in terms of download time, although you still have to have them installed the first time, so it doesn't save any hard drive space.

Dusty

dtw · 2005-02-02 13:43:05

whoops - i just had an epiphany - these is an easy way to make sure you only get the deps you want and nothing more...

i think it's called gentoo or something... :?

Gullible Jones · 2005-02-02 20:17:45

Nah, it's called ABS.

Okay, Gentoo's nice if you have a fast computer and don't go overboard with the optimizations, but if you have an older, slower machine it can be a pain.

demonus · 2005-02-09 17:45:25

 [root@maciek /]# pacman -S bluefish

Targets: docbook-xml-4.1.2-2 scrollkeeper-0.3.14-2 gnome-common-2.8.0-5 orbit2-2.12.1-1 libbonobo-2.8.1-1 dbus-0.23-4 libcap-1.10-1
         hal-0.4.7-1 howl-0.9.10-1 gconf-2.8.1-1 shared-mime-info-0.15-1 gnome-mime-data-2.4.2-1 gnome-vfs-2.8.3-4 bluefish-1.0-2

Total Package Size:   7.6 MB

well this is something Ive been writing about... no comments
[/code]

phrakture · 2005-02-09 17:58:13

post a bug report...

xerxes2 · 2005-02-09 18:05:55

JGC has already stripped down bluefish to a minimum, I don't think it's going to get any smaller than this,

miqorz · 2005-02-09 18:55:59

He enabled gnome-vfs for network editing. Remove the dependency like in abs and make your own package.

thegnu · 2005-02-09 23:17:05

I personally think anyone installing KDE gives up right to complain of bloat. Really, KDE is the King Kong of bloat (Windows, of course, gets to be Godzilla).

IceRAM · 2005-02-09 23:42:36

thegnu wrote:

I personally think anyone installing KDE gives up right to complain of bloat. Really, KDE is the King Kong of bloat (Windows, of course, gets to be Godzilla).

Hey... be careful what you say about my KDE installation.

It is a well integrated bloat, please. Don't forget details!
And, surprisingly, on ArchLinux it a very controlable bloat also.

Given the HDD space, RAM and computing power my computer has (just like most desktop station nowadays), I can afford bloat. In fact, in a (pacman) controlled environment such as ArchLinux, I don't mind installing any packages which might be considered bloat.

I agree though that some dependencies should be dropped in favour of makedepends + install messages (this, of course, if the program allows running without those particular dependencies installed - it ends up to be a problem of the program otherwise).

thegnu · 2005-02-10 15:14:23

IceRAM wrote:

I agree though that some dependencies should be dropped in favour of makedepends + install messages

Me too. I do agree that DEs are designed as massively integrated packages, and there's not much you can do about it. The problem with Linux GUIs now is that error messages are sometimes lost. For example, I like how rhythmbox tells you that to import an audio CD, you need sound-juicer, but not all apps do that, they just puke. So I definitely see the argument for erring on the side of a bit of bloat rather than having to deal with application failure mysteries.

But yeah, if things can be taken out without breaking anything, I'm all for it.

Arch Linux

#26 2005-02-01 21:31:23

Re: why so many dependencies?

#27 2005-02-01 21:50:34

Re: why so many dependencies?

#28 2005-02-02 13:43:05

Re: why so many dependencies?

#29 2005-02-02 20:17:45

Re: why so many dependencies?

#30 2005-02-09 17:45:25

Re: why so many dependencies?

#31 2005-02-09 17:58:13

Re: why so many dependencies?

#32 2005-02-09 18:05:55

Re: why so many dependencies?

#33 2005-02-09 18:55:59

Re: why so many dependencies?

#34 2005-02-09 23:17:05

Re: why so many dependencies?

#35 2005-02-09 23:42:36

Re: why so many dependencies?

#36 2005-02-10 15:14:23

Re: why so many dependencies?

Board footer