Optional editline dependencies

Alexander E. Patrakov patrakov at ums.usu.ru
Wed Aug 1 08:15:09 PDT 2007

Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Ag. D. Hatzimanikas wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 01, at 09:15 Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>> Again, this is not to refute that we must look into the new port
>>> of libedit, I only wrote this as an FYI about the misconception of
>>> what ldd output means.
>> I can't comment about this part, because I am not really sure, but for
>> the record, I always thought that every package that linked into a binary
>> is being used directly or indirectly.
> Yes, of course it is used directly *or indirectly*. But that wasn't
> the purpose of my message. It appears that both you and Alex didn't
> understand the meaning of my message, so apparently I didn't explain
> well. I'll try again.
> Say package A has ldd output that shows that libB is linked into
> it. My point is that it may not be that package A actually has
> any need, not can use any functionality of libB. It only *could*
> mean that some other package that package A links into the build,
> linked libB into its build. Meaning that if the other package
> didn't link libB into its build, package A's build would be
> identically the same, with exactly no difference in functionality.
> So, moral is, just because a binary lists a library in its ldd
> output, it really doesn't mean a thing other than it is indirectly
> referenced. And that indirectness could be absolutely meaningless.
> Does this make better sense?

Yes. I did try to address this by using readelf, not ldd. This lists 
only direct dependencies. There are indeed unused direct dependencies in 
Debian's sftp - but libedit is not one of them:

patrakov at home:~$ ldd -u /usr/bin/sftp
Unused direct dependencies:

Alexander E. Patrakov

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list