On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 22:01 +0400, Eugene Pivnev wrote: > 01.05.2013 23:07, Matthias Clasen: > > On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 11:46 +0400, Eugene Pivnev wrote: > >> Whether I have to create bugreports? > > Creating patches would be more interesting. > Creating patches is greate idea - but is too hard for one man. > I created dependency graph for some qt-based applications (green color) > against gtk*/*gnome* ones (red). *gnome* is too simplistic. There are 'GNOME' things that aren't really that GNOME-y... > Sorry for big picture - it is because of loopbacks. > > Problematic dependencies that I found: > > qgit -> git -> libgnome_keyring ...like this one, for instance. libgnome-keyring's dependencies are pretty modest: /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libdbus-1.so.3()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11()(64bit) libgcrypt.so.11(GCRYPT_1.2)(64bit) libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 You can rip out gtk2 without losing libgnome-keyring. > opencv -> gtk2; > xscreensaver_base -> libglade2 -> gtk2; > librsvg2 -> gtk3; These ones look a bit more significant. xscreensaver-base's dep on gtk2 in particular looks odd. > The question is - are these dependencies unbreakable? Indeed... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
