Larry Vaden wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: >> Even if no one can come up with a way to extrapolate the dependencies >> from the RHEL binary, the task seems like something that would scale >> with more build machines and more people to stage the trial-and-error >> builds. > > History seems irrelevant to many; if that is the case with the > reader, hit DELETE now. > > Soon to be 50 years ago, Control Data's SCOPE (simultaneous control of > program execution) had 'lgo' (load-and-go) which obviously had to > resolve dependencies at run-time, and it produced a load map. It > would seem this approach would be useful, but I dunno. > > Perhaps it is a tool that Jeff or someone would like to investigate > further, perhaps not. IMHO, there's nothing unfathomable about a > package reaching out to include other packages. > > IFF this turns out to be a useful approach, I would like to thank Dr. > James Browne at utexas.edu for his mentoring of our group, > particularly for his guidance in scheduling and proving program > correctness. This is not just a simple "find a library" task, sometimes you need to find out what *exact* version of the called library *must* be used to keep compatibility (in case of hidden dependency without published matching SRPMS) with RHEL. Ljubomir