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

[Martin Stricker]

Paul Nijjar wrote:

>       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.

Yes they do - otherwise rpm -b wouldn't make much sense...
I think that is the most easy way of removing unneeded dependencies. Red
Hat won't do it - I complained back at RHL7.0 (I think) about them
having dropped the emacs-nox package. Furthermore all their
redhat-config-* tools require X - it's quite difficult to install and
maintain a Red Hat server without X. I hate it... I'm more and more
considering Debian instead - if it weren't for their attitude...

> > ...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.

Agreed absolutely!

Best regards,
Martin Stricker
-- 
Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/
Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/
Red Hat Linux 9 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/
Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/

_______________________________________________
Original home page of the RULE project: www.rule-project.org
Rule-list at rule-project.org
http://rita.choice-secure.com/mailman/listinfo/rule-list_rule-project.org