XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

steven · 2007-07-21 18:40:26

Can we change the xfmedia package to not depend on ESD please? This is really unnecessary. If a user wants to use ESD, or Gnome, they can - but software that doesn't actually depend on another lib, shouldn't be calling it. I notice that many packages do this and it's really not great practice.

pacman -S xfmedia
resolving dependencies... done.
looking for inter-conflicts... done.

Targets: 
  libxvmc-1.0.4-1  
  audiofile-0.2.6-3  
  ****esd-0.2.38-3****  
  flac-1.1.4-1  
  libmng-1.0.9-1  
  xine-lib-1.1.7-1  
  xfmedia-0.9.2-3

skymt · 2007-07-21 18:43:40

xine-lib is what's pulling in esd. You can change the xine-lib PKGBUILD from abs to not require esd. Removing it from the depends and adding "--without-esd" to the configure line should suffice.

steven · 2007-07-21 18:58:45

Ok, my point is, it's still unnecessary. Why should it be recompiled for me alone? Surely it should be the other way round - free from unnecessary dependencies, leaving users free to use ABS and add extra dependencies if they want them. Don't you think?

skymt · 2007-07-21 19:20:02

It goes both ways: why should esd users have to recompile xine-lib to use it? Which is worse: pulling in an extra dependency to make sure it works out of the box on almost any setup, or leaving the dependencies minimal so many users have to recompile to add features they need? Gentoo has it easy, having USE flags to solve this problem, but that's impractical for a binary distro like Arch.

In this case, since esd is deprecated in Gnome, the depend should probably be removed. You should email the maintainer about it and build your own in the mean time. But deprecated software is a special case: in general, building packages with more features (and therefore more depends) is the better way.

steven · 2007-07-21 19:26:30

But ESD isn't a solid dependency. I would hazard a guess that the majority of Arch users have hardware that would work well with alsa, out of the box. Even on-board hardware.

Another example - trying to install moc (a console based audio player), it, or one of it's deps, also depends on JACK (Jack audio connection kit). Now, the ONLY people that need JACK, are people doing professional audio work. JACK is a low latency audio server, used for routing audio between apps like Ardour, Rosegarden, JAMin etc. It's certainly not necessary for anyone NOT doing audio routing and recording work (which, again, I would guess the majority of arch users do not).

So, my point again is that many packages have completely unnecessary dependencies.

I agree, Gentoo has it great with USE flags, but as you said, it's not a realistic possibility with a binary based package management system. Packages a pre-compiled and if arch was to account for all the different possibilities, well - it's too much.

That's why I believe it should be the basics. Specific dependencies, like JACK, which only a minority of users will utilise, should be left out and compiled on a per-user basis.

shining · 2007-07-21 20:46:51

I don't think you got it.
Having an extra dependency that you don't use is LESS IMPORTANT than a missing dependency you badly need.
The first doesn't prevent you from using the app, while the second does.
That's not too hard to understand, is it?

Maybe the best thing to do in the case of HUGE extra dependencies (eg X) is having two different packages, with and without that support.

JGC · 2007-07-21 23:47:01

So because you don't like to have a tiny package on your system, I have to recomile all audio applications to get sound on my terminals? Having libesound as a dependency in these programs has a reason.

steven · 2007-07-22 09:02:55

shining wrote:

I don't think you got it.
Having an extra dependency that you don't use is LESS IMPORTANT than a missing dependency you badly need.
The first doesn't prevent you from using the app, while the second does.
That's not too hard to understand, is it?
Maybe the best thing to do in the case of HUGE extra dependencies (eg X) is having two different packages, with and without that support.

No, I perfectly understand. But you said it yourself, ESD is deprecated. The example I gave, JACK, is completely UNNECESSARY for the large majority of users. The point you make is a fair one, it's the drawback of a binary based system, but sure, it's a valid point. But in the cases that I've raised, your point is invalidated, because the packages are not necessary for the task they perform. Again, the JACK dependency is case in point.

iphitus · 2007-07-22 11:09:51

steven wrote:

shining wrote:
I don't think you got it.
Having an extra dependency that you don't use is LESS IMPORTANT than a missing dependency you badly need.
The first doesn't prevent you from using the app, while the second does.
That's not too hard to understand, is it?
Maybe the best thing to do in the case of HUGE extra dependencies (eg X) is having two different packages, with and without that support.
No, I perfectly understand. But you said it yourself, ESD is deprecated. The example I gave, JACK, is completely UNNECESSARY for the large majority of users. The point you make is a fair one, it's the drawback of a binary based system, but sure, it's a valid point. But in the cases that I've raised, your point is invalidated, because the packages are not necessary for the task they perform. Again, the JACK dependency is case in point.

ESD isnt deprecated, it's unmaintained. Technicality? No. ESD is still widely supported. I use ESD. Others use ESD. Gnome still deems ESD worthy to use by default.

Further, the esound protocol is still useful. Pulseaudio for example has an esd input plugin.

If we took this approach of disabling everything, then Arch would be pretty useless out of the box. It'd force the majority of users to recompile some application or another, rather than a petty minority who cry about losing 0.5mb of space.

We can't choose an approach of picking and choosing dependencies either, because we can't accurately judge the popularity for any. You'd be surprised at how many people use some packages.

James

Last edited by iphitus (2007-07-23 13:31:59)

shining · 2007-07-22 18:03:46

steven wrote:

No, I perfectly understand. But you said it yourself, ESD is deprecated. The example I gave, JACK, is completely UNNECESSARY for the large majority of users. The point you make is a fair one, it's the drawback of a binary based system, but sure, it's a valid point. But in the cases that I've raised, your point is invalidated, because the packages are not necessary for the task they perform. Again, the JACK dependency is case in point.

I don't like esd (and don't use it), and don't use it jack either. But the point is, I really don't care whether they are installed or not, as long as it doesn't break anything, and that it may be useful to some users (even a few).

Arch Linux

#1 2007-07-21 18:40:26

XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

#2 2007-07-21 18:43:40

Re: XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

#3 2007-07-21 18:58:45

Re: XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

#4 2007-07-21 19:20:02

Re: XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

#5 2007-07-21 19:26:30

Re: XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

#6 2007-07-21 20:46:51

Re: XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

#7 2007-07-21 23:47:01

Re: XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

#8 2007-07-22 09:02:55

Re: XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

#9 2007-07-22 11:09:51

Re: XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

#10 2007-07-22 18:03:46

Re: XFmedia pulling un-needed depenency ESD!

Board footer