[GnomeMeeting-list] Re: Why all the #%$ *(*& dependencies Was: GnomeMeeting-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 35

["Jouni Lohikoski iki fi" <jlohikos cc hut fi>]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 11:55:21PM -0500, gnomemeeting-list-request gnome org wrote:
Content-Description: GnomeMeeting-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 35
> From: Allan <amau sympatico ca>
> Subject: [GnomeMeeting-list] Why all the #%$ *(*& dependencies
> I can understand why it was useful at one time to have all these libraries.  
> Storage was expensive, etc.  But now, storage is dirt cheap.  So can someone 
> give me a rational explanation as to why developers simply don't include 
> everything needed in the packages they produce?  For example, if I recall 
> correctly, Opera comes in two flavours - statically linked and dynamically 
> linked.  The statically linked package is somewhat larger, but so what?

In a multitasking environment it makes sense to have as much code as
possible to be shared between other applications. Just think if every
GNOME program would be statically linked and you would be (not even
knowinig) a heavy GNOME user. You would easily need gigabytes of RAM memory
just in a normal office or home computer, or otherwise the system would swap
intolerably much often.

But I do agree the dynamic linking strategies should somehow be done
somehow alot easier. It is not a big problem to use some good 
distribution and install packages and dependencies from that same 
distribution, but compiling some CVS code with all the dependencies is
a huge task sometimes. One of the best examples is to compile MPlayer
with all its features from the CVS version. 

Ofcourse developers could make it make more sense, if for example they 
would use RPM source packages to distribute also developer and experimental 
versions and would always also keep the source library dependencies
updated. But very very seldom I see correct use of "BuildRequires:"
fields in any RPM spec file. In a long run I think it would save even
time when done routinely. But it would require that also library and
other upstream developers would be as conscientious. Also some
Freedesktop Project or Linux Standard Base should "enforce" more
strictly how packages should be named between different distributions.

< http://www.fedora.us/docs/rpm-packaging-guidelines.html#buildrequires >

// jouni