From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/7322 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Laurent Bercot Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: perl native musl, ldd Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:48:17 +0200 Message-ID: <551DAB11.50304@skarnet.org> References: <551D65EF.9030802@safe.ca> <20150402161837.GA6817@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <551D87C0.4010409@safe.ca> <20150402184810.GF4456@example.net> <551DA936.2070302@safe.ca> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1428007705 1301 80.91.229.3 (2 Apr 2015 20:48:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 20:48:25 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-7335-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Apr 02 22:48:25 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ydm2J-0006lb-To for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2015 22:48:24 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 17902 invoked by uid 550); 2 Apr 2015 20:48:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 17881 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2015 20:48:21 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 In-Reply-To: <551DA936.2070302@safe.ca> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:7322 Archived-At: On 02/04/2015 22:40, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote: > Using ldd was the best way I found to list one package all > dependencies (looking at ELF file type ans searching for > required external components). Yeah, there's no way this is gonna work. Dependencies are not only about dynamic libraries, they could be about executable files, data files, or something else entirely. ldd would only give you a very partial idea of a package's dependencies. > If you have a better way (more standard) to propose not using > ldd that will be a good thing. idea? I'm afraid there's no easy way - you cannot automate dependency tracking. If you're going to package software, you will have to manually list all the dependencies for every single one of your packages. -- Laurent