[RULE] gd, xpm, and X libraries: need a second opinion

Paul Nijjar pnijjar at utm.utoronto.ca
Tue Jul 6 19:09:22 EEST 2004

On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Peter E. Popovich wrote:

> 1) propose a specfile for gd that builds gd two ways: gd-noX and gd.  gd
> would stay as-is, gd-noX would be gd built with xpm disabled.  i'm not
> sure how existing packages would distinguish which gd functionality they
> need.  all in all, i think rh is unlikely to adopt this change into future
> releases.
	Do SRPMs come with specfiles? If so, then all you would need to
track is the specfile. Every time RedHat (or whomever) came up with a new
version of the package (which corrected errata or whatever) then you could
build the package using the new specfile.

	It certainly is more work than getting an officially-endorsed
package, but my guess is that much of this work can be automated. I'm not
familiar enough with RPM to say for certain, however.

> ...it occurs to me at this point that the entire premise of posting here
> assumes that folks here agree it's worth worrying about eliminating a
> dependance on X libraries.  dunno if that's the case.

	I can't speak for anybody else, but reducing dependencies on
components I don't need is a huge consideration for me. Many simple
graphical packages I want depend on GNOME or KDE when they don't really
need to.

- Paul

Original home page of the RULE project: www.rule-project.org
Rule-list at rule-project.org

This full static mirror of the Run Up to Date Linux Everywhere Project mailing list, originally hosted at http://lists.hellug.gr/mailman/listinfo/rule-list, is kept online by Free Software popularizer, researcher and trainer Marco Fioretti. To know how you can support this archive, and Marco's work in general, please click here