Slimming down Slackware - Slackware

This is a discussion on Slimming down Slackware - Slackware ; Slackware installed lots of things I have no use for such as sound, CDrecord, several editors I don't use, etc. Even though I tried for a minimul install I've removed more than 100 unneeded packages but when it comes to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Slimming down Slackware

  1. Slimming down Slackware

    Slackware installed lots of things I have no use for such as sound,
    CDrecord, several editors I don't use, etc. Even though I tried for a
    minimul install I've removed more than 100 unneeded packages but
    when it comes to the libs things get a little complicated.
    If there's any dependancy info available on the system I've yet to
    find it.
    Pointers?

    Debian has a utility called deborphan that searches the system and
    tells me what libs are installed that no packages depend on.
    Is there such a utility for Slackware?

    Thanks,
    Mike


  2. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On 2007-06-19, Mike wrote:
    > Slackware installed lots of things I have no use for such as sound,
    > CDrecord, several editors I don't use, etc. Even though I tried for a
    > minimul install I've removed more than 100 unneeded packages but
    > when it comes to the libs things get a little complicated.



    If you broke something, then you didn't only remove unneeded stuff.


    > If there's any dependancy info available on the system I've yet to
    > find it.
    > Pointers?
    >
    > Debian has a utility called deborphan that searches the system and
    > tells me what libs are installed that no packages depend on.
    > Is there such a utility for Slackware?



    whoami(1) will advise the name of the dependency resolver in Slackware.

    You might find ldd(1) useful as well.

    RW

  3. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On 2007-06-19, Mike wrote:

    > Debian has a utility called deborphan that searches the system and
    > tells me what libs are installed that no packages depend on.
    > Is there such a utility for Slackware?


    Slackware's package utilities (pkgtool, removepkg, installpkg, etc) do
    no dependency checking. As an linux admin, that's your job. It's
    up to you to go to the source of a program or utility and learn which
    libraries, programs, etc, any other program needs. Slack's package
    tools, such as they are, do offer some help. Both installpkg and
    removepkg have a -warn option. For example:

    remove -warn packagename

    ........will indicate which dirs and files will be removed. But, it's
    on you to determine what's in those files and dirs and if you will
    miss them or not. Welcome to Slackware, the OS that doesn't do
    anything you don't tell it to.

    (although I was surprised to see seamonkey throw up a pop-up telling
    me there's an update available. Need to nip the kinda crap in the
    bud! (preferences > advanced > software installation: uncheck all)).

    nb

  4. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:53:32 +0000, Robby Workman wrote:

    >> Debian has a utility called deborphan that searches the system and
    >> tells me what libs are installed that no packages depend on.
    >> Is there such a utility for Slackware?


    > whoami(1) will advise the name of the dependency resolver in Slackware.


    LOL! Excellent.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  5. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:07:05 -0500, notbob wrote:



    > (although I was surprised to see seamonkey throw up a pop-up telling
    > me there's an update available. Need to nip the kinda crap in the
    > bud! (preferences > advanced > software installation: uncheck all)).


    Damn straight.

    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  6. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Robby Workman wrote:
    >>
    >> Debian has a utility called deborphan that searches the system and
    >> tells me what libs are installed that no packages depend on.
    >> Is there such a utility for Slackware?

    >
    >
    > whoami(1) will advise the name of the dependency resolver in Slackware.




    BL.
    - --
    Brad Littlejohn | Email: tyketto@sbcglobal.net
    Unix Systems Administrator, | tyketto@ozemail.com.au
    Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
    PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFGeHllyBkZmuMZ8L8RApGXAJwOy9r4pYTyD+WpNko/sbg0b7BUfACg3WEg
    CEejVHFv03Nh54AG993aF4g=
    =zbnf
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  7. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    Mike (mikemcclain46@hotmail.com) writes:
    > Slackware installed lots of things I have no use for such as sound,
    > CDrecord, several editors I don't use, etc. Even though I tried for a
    > minimul install I've removed more than 100 unneeded packages but
    > when it comes to the libs things get a little complicated.
    > If there's any dependancy info available on the system I've yet to
    > find it.
    > Pointers?
    >

    I suspect you're going to end up not saving all that much space removing
    libraries. Especially given the size of hard drives these days. Remove
    the applications, and that will free up an awful lot of space. After that,
    the return will be in small increments compared to the effort of tracking
    won what is used.

    Figure out what programs you really use, and then use ldd on them
    to figure out what they use. Not automated, but it would help you figure
    out the libs that are common to a lot of things, and those that are merely
    some code separated out from some program for nebulous reasons (rather
    than keeping the code in the application).

    Or as someone said, start removing libs until something doesn't work,
    just like Mad Man Muntz would design tv sets, remove parts until things
    stopped working, and then put back the last parts.

    Look through /libs and some will obviously sound familiar (or they should
    be if you actually feel a need to remove them). The ones that don't sound
    familiar are likely to see less useage, and can be a target for study.

    I suspect that you'll find that the larger the lib, the more it is used.

    Michael

  8. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    Mike wrote:

    > Slackware installed lots of things I have no use for such as
    > sound, CDrecord, several editors I don't use, etc. Even though I
    > tried for a minimul install I've removed more than 100 unneeded
    > packages but when it comes to the libs things get a little
    > complicated. If there's any dependancy info available on the
    > system I've yet to find it. Pointers?


    You should realize, however, that removing these packages might save
    you a bit of disk space, but it will not in any way cause your
    system to run any faster or leaner. When people talk about reducing
    bloat on a system they aren't talking about disk space. They are
    talking about active services, both in applications and daemons.

    Type "ps aux" to see what services you have running and work on
    reducing those. Most of these extra services can be turned off from
    somewhere below the /etc directory.

    Since you are using a dialup you'll have no use for named, sendmail,
    fetchmail, httpd and even gpm, if you don't want to use the mouse
    from console mode. Since you won't be online that much there isn't
    much use in having crond and atd running, either.

    Make sure that you go through the /etc/inetd.conf file and turn off
    the stuff that you don't want active.

    On the other hand, if you are curious, you should experiment on your
    own instead of asking others what to do, especially since you don't
    seem to appreciate the best advice when it is given to you.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  9. Re: Slimming down Slackware


    "Mike" escreveu na mensagem
    news:1182291786.432206.304620@e9g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
    > Slackware installed lots of things I have no use for such as sound,
    > CDrecord, several editors I don't use, etc. Even though I tried for a
    > minimul install I've removed more than 100 unneeded packages but
    > when it comes to the libs things get a little complicated.
    > If there's any dependancy info available on the system I've yet to
    > find it.
    > Pointers?
    >
    > Debian has a utility called deborphan that searches the system and
    > tells me what libs are installed that no packages depend on.
    > Is there such a utility for Slackware?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Mike
    >


    Hey there;

    Sometimes I pick up old hardware and install Slackware in it. This means
    hard disk space is, eventually, limited - which forces me to trim down the
    number of instaled packages in order to have a working system.
    What I usually do is, create a disk with a set of customized tagfiles where
    every package marked 'REC' or 'OPT' is changed to 'SKP' except those which
    are well-known to be useful - according to my criteria. The base set, the X
    set, the graphic libs (libjpeg, libpng, etc. ) and the trivial X apps (XMMS,
    Firefox, etc. ). After instalation, I run each X app in a terminal window
    and if it goes belly up 'bout some missing lib I'll modify my 'l' tagfile to
    include it and install it manually - repeat as many times as necessary until
    the app runs.
    Somewhat laborous, but only done once. After having a nice tagfiles disk,
    I'll use it for further installations - until a new release of Slack comes
    about.

    Regards

    Paulo



  10. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    rm@realto.justlinux.ca wrote:

    > Type "ps aux" to see what services you have running and work on
    > reducing those. Most of these extra services can be turned off
    > from somewhere below the /etc directory.


    > Since you are using a dialup you'll have no use for named,
    > sendmail, fetchmail, httpd and even gpm, if you don't want to use
    > the mouse from console mode. Since you won't be online that much
    > there isn't much use in having crond and atd running, either.


    Having read this again, we realize that we didn't have too much
    sleep when we wrote that you could do without crond and atd. We
    were presuming that you wouldn't be using the computer at all unless
    you were logged in and that is a pretty silly presumption, now isn't
    it?

    We need to eat more polar bear stew.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  11. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    I think Mike at this thread's top, has a very good point.
    There is just too much *stuff* out there. But working down
    this thread I see responses signaling an unfortunate
    and careless lack of concern by several responders to
    effect that if you don't think like they do, if you don't want
    or have skills and time to weed through a regular jungle of
    stuff, then you're beneath contempt (and they are
    certainly far superior to stupid *you*.)

    I think this attitude helps nobody and that it hurts the
    general adoption of Linux, a badly-needed alternative to
    Microsoft's monopoly.

    However, not mentioned in this thread, is the existence
    today of a variety of *small* Linuxes, of which two are
    "Damn Small Linux" and "Puppy Linux". To find these,
    just scout,

    http://www.livecdlist.com

    http://www.distrowatch.com

    http://www.cheapbytes.com

    for openers. It doesn't seem as helpful as I'd hope for
    those who do not want massive distributions to mention
    their need here: it gives some responders a (needed)
    opportunity to flash their superiority. But this thread is
    in fact about a topic well known in some circles; and
    remedies exist beyond those I've listed above.

    Cheers -- Martha Adams
    [alt.os.linux.slackware 2007 Jun 20]


    "Paulo Costa" wrote in message
    news:4678d8df$0$10955$a729d347@news.telepac.pt...
    >
    > "Mike" escreveu na mensagem
    > news:1182291786.432206.304620@e9g2000prf.googlegro ups.com...
    >> Slackware installed lots of things I have no use for such as sound,
    >> CDrecord, several editors I don't use, etc. Even though I tried for a
    >> minimul install I've removed more than 100 unneeded packages but
    >> when it comes to the libs things get a little complicated.
    >> If there's any dependancy info available on the system I've yet to
    >> find it.
    >> Pointers?
    >>
    >> Debian has a utility called deborphan that searches the system and
    >> tells me what libs are installed that no packages depend on.
    >> Is there such a utility for Slackware?
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Mike
    >>

    >
    > Hey there;
    >
    > Sometimes I pick up old hardware and install Slackware in it. This
    > means hard disk space is, eventually, limited - which forces me to
    > trim down the number of instaled packages in order to have a working
    > system.
    > What I usually do is, create a disk with a set of customized tagfiles
    > where every package marked 'REC' or 'OPT' is changed to 'SKP' except
    > those which are well-known to be useful - according to my criteria.
    > The base set, the X set, the graphic libs (libjpeg, libpng, etc. ) and
    > the trivial X apps (XMMS, Firefox, etc. ). After instalation, I run
    > each X app in a terminal window and if it goes belly up 'bout some
    > missing lib I'll modify my 'l' tagfile to include it and install it
    > manually - repeat as many times as necessary until the app runs.
    > Somewhat laborous, but only done once. After having a nice tagfiles
    > disk, I'll use it for further installations - until a new release of
    > Slack comes about.
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > Paulo
    >



  12. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:32:34 +0000, Martha Adams wrote:

    > I think this attitude helps nobody and that it hurts the
    > general adoption of Linux, a badly-needed alternative to
    > Microsoft's monopoly.


    Har! That's a good one, coming from a top-posting, Outhouse Excuse using,
    ignorant Win-droid!

    > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028


    **** off, doofus.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".


  13. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    Martha Adams wrote:

    > I think Mike at this thread's top, has a very good point.
    > There is just too much *stuff* out there. But working down
    > this thread I see responses signaling an unfortunate
    > and careless lack of concern by several responders to
    > effect that if you don't think like they do, if you don't want
    > or have skills and time to weed through a regular jungle of
    > stuff, then you're beneath contempt (and they are
    > certainly far superior to stupid *you*.)


    Your ability to read minds must be very useful. I see only one post that's
    even mildly contemptuous. That would be Roger's complaint that Mike does
    not seem to appreciate the advice he is given. And I have to agree with
    that. You are the sixth person who has responded to Mike, and the sixth he
    has apparently ignored. That's just rude, and yes, it's stupid.

    --
    Old Man

    "Swagger isn't courage." Lee Iacocca

  14. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    Martha Adams trolled:
    > I think Mike at this thread's top, has a very good point.


    Could you please refrain from top-posting in the future?

    Top-posting is destroying usenet. Try and be a good internet
    citizen, ok?

    Thanks.

    cordially, as always,

    rm

  15. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    "Martha Adams" (mhada@verizon.net) writes:
    > I think Mike at this thread's top, has a very good point.
    > There is just too much *stuff* out there. But working down
    > this thread I see responses signaling an unfortunate
    > and careless lack of concern by several responders to
    > effect that if you don't think like they do, if you don't want
    > or have skills and time to weed through a regular jungle of
    > stuff, then you're beneath contempt (and they are
    > certainly far superior to stupid *you*.)
    >

    Huh?

    WHen I first tried Linux, it was in late 2000. Debian on a 486
    with a 240meg hard drive and all of 10megs of RAM. All the fuss
    Debian does over dependencies made it appear far more difficult
    than it actually was, but having to decide what little I could
    install when I had no experience with most of the software was a big
    problem.

    Debian doesn't include Pine, I wanted that, and when Slackware came
    along in the form of "Slackware for Dummies" complete with 7.0 on
    the CDROM, a damaged cover made the price too good to turn down, I
    installed that. The issue of dependencies was out of mind, and what
    little I could install seemd to have no problem.

    I decided to use Linux I needed a better computer so I bought a 200MHz
    Pentium with 32megs of RAM and a 2gig hard drive. I could toss all
    of Slackware 7.0 on that hard drive, and still leave lots of space. It
    was far easier than having to make decisions.

    The reality is that most newcomers are likely running with a computer
    that they've been running Windows on and will have the space.

    I've had Slackware 10 something like 3 years, and I pretty much
    tossed all of it in the hard drive. After the years since the initial
    install, and obviously I've added other things including openoffice,
    I'm still only using 3.3gigs of hard drive space. That is not a lot
    of space in this age.

    Note that if I was hard up for hard drive space, I'd toss out a lot of
    applications. I'd likely be thinking about whether I really needed X,
    and if I really did, then figure out which Windows manager and desktop
    would give me enough without bloat. And no, I wouldn't be fussing with libs,
    precisely because the effort is too high for the return. /lib iss taking
    something like 25megs of hard drive space? Or am I misreading that?

    Sometimes you actually have to try to interpret the question. I took
    the original question as someone who just wants to get rid of clutter,
    it doesn't necessarily read that he has no hard drive space.

    Michael

  16. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    Michael Black wrote:
    > "Martha Adams" (mhada@verizon.net) writes:
    >> I think Mike at this thread's top, has a very good point.
    >> There is just too much *stuff* out there. But working down
    >> this thread I see responses signaling an unfortunate
    >> and careless lack of concern by several responders to
    >> effect that if you don't think like they do, if you don't want
    >> or have skills and time to weed through a regular jungle of
    >> stuff, then you're beneath contempt (and they are
    >> certainly far superior to stupid *you*.)
    >>

    > Huh?
    >
    > WHen I first tried Linux, it was in late 2000. Debian on a 486
    > with a 240meg hard drive and all of 10megs of RAM. All the fuss
    > Debian does over dependencies made it appear far more difficult
    > than it actually was, but having to decide what little I could
    > install when I had no experience with most of the software was a big
    > problem.
    >
    > Debian doesn't include Pine, I wanted that, and when Slackware came
    > along in the form of "Slackware for Dummies" complete with 7.0 on
    > the CDROM, a damaged cover made the price too good to turn down, I
    > installed that. The issue of dependencies was out of mind, and what
    > little I could install seemd to have no problem.
    >
    > I decided to use Linux I needed a better computer so I bought a 200MHz
    > Pentium with 32megs of RAM and a 2gig hard drive. I could toss all
    > of Slackware 7.0 on that hard drive, and still leave lots of space. It
    > was far easier than having to make decisions.
    >
    > The reality is that most newcomers are likely running with a computer
    > that they've been running Windows on and will have the space.
    >
    > I've had Slackware 10 something like 3 years, and I pretty much
    > tossed all of it in the hard drive. After the years since the initial
    > install, and obviously I've added other things including openoffice,
    > I'm still only using 3.3gigs of hard drive space. That is not a lot
    > of space in this age.
    >
    > Note that if I was hard up for hard drive space, I'd toss out a lot of
    > applications. I'd likely be thinking about whether I really needed X,
    > and if I really did, then figure out which Windows manager and desktop
    > would give me enough without bloat. And no, I wouldn't be fussing with libs,
    > precisely because the effort is too high for the return. /lib iss taking
    > something like 25megs of hard drive space? Or am I misreading that?
    >
    > Sometimes you actually have to try to interpret the question. I took
    > the original question as someone who just wants to get rid of clutter,
    > it doesn't necessarily read that he has no hard drive space.
    >
    > Michael

    /lib is there to provide only the libs necessary for a minimal
    environment iirc
    /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib (if you follow LSB and install a lot yourself),
    /opt/*/lib are the places where most of the libs are hiding

    du -hs /usr/lib /usr/local/lib /opt/*/lib 2>/dev/null
    616M /usr/lib
    2.7M /usr/local/lib
    228M /opt/kde/lib

    df -h /
    Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
    /dev/hda2 4.0G 3.6G 471M 89% /

    that's quite a lot of diskspace also bear in mind i have source code of
    3 kernels in /usr/src/ so relative to all data its a big chunk and i'm
    not certain about this but isn't it better to remove everything you
    don't need ? less files are easier to handle, no ? Less headaches about
    security, permissions, ...

    and besides i don't know about you but i'm not really happy with my disk
    beeing 89 % full.

  17. Re: Slimming down Slackware


    "Martha Adams" escreveu na mensagem
    news:C79ei.7719$Fw5.336@trndny02...
    >I think Mike at this thread's top, has a very good point.
    > There is just too much *stuff* out there. But working down
    > this thread I see responses signaling an unfortunate
    > and careless lack of concern by several responders to
    > effect that if you don't think like they do, if you don't want
    > or have skills and time to weed through a regular jungle of
    > stuff, then you're beneath contempt (and they are
    > certainly far superior to stupid *you*.)
    >
    > I think this attitude helps nobody and that it hurts the
    > general adoption of Linux, a badly-needed alternative to
    > Microsoft's monopoly.
    >
    > However, not mentioned in this thread, is the existence
    > today of a variety of *small* Linuxes, of which two are
    > "Damn Small Linux" and "Puppy Linux". To find these,
    > just scout,
    >
    > http://www.livecdlist.com
    >
    > http://www.distrowatch.com
    >
    > http://www.cheapbytes.com
    >


    Hello Martha;

    I even dare to mention ZenWalk Linux - a Slackware based distribution that
    fits a single CD and has a filosophy of "one tool for each job". Pretty
    elegant and with a friendly user community. you can find it at - guess! -
    http://www.zenwalk.org

    Regards

    Paulo



  18. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On 2007-06-20, Michael Black wrote:
    >
    > And no, I wouldn't be fussing with libs,
    > precisely because the effort is too high for the return. /lib iss taking
    > something like 25megs of hard drive space? Or am I misreading that?


    My /lib is 13MB, but you almost certainly won't remove those anyway; the
    libs that would be candidates for removal are in /usr/lib. My /usr/lib
    is 621MB, which for most cases is still not large enough to warrant
    hunting through each package. (And, in most cases, I wouldn't even
    bother with a tool like deborphan, either, for only 621MB. But there
    are cases where I might.)

    > Sometimes you actually have to try to interpret the question. I took
    > the original question as someone who just wants to get rid of clutter,
    > it doesn't necessarily read that he has no hard drive space.


    Since we haven't heard back from the OP, it's all rampant speculation.

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  19. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:31:15 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

    > On 2007-06-20, Michael Black wrote:
    >>
    >> And no, I wouldn't be fussing with libs, precisely because the effort
    >> is too high for the return. /lib iss taking something like 25megs of
    >> hard drive space? Or am I misreading that?

    >
    > My /lib is 13MB, but you almost certainly won't remove those anyway; the
    > libs that would be candidates for removal are in /usr/lib. My /usr/lib
    > is 621MB, which for most cases is still not large enough to warrant
    > hunting through each package. (And, in most cases, I wouldn't even
    > bother with a tool like deborphan, either, for only 621MB. But there
    > are cases where I might.)


    Thanks Keith,
    that reminded me I'd have to clarify my libs a bit:

    # du -sh /lib /usr/lib /usr/local/lib/
    520M /lib
    1.9G /usr/lib
    73M /usr/local/lib/


    >> Sometimes you actually have to try to interpret the question. I took
    >> the original question as someone who just wants to get rid of clutter,
    >> it doesn't necessarily read that he has no hard drive space.


    Thanks again Keith, that just reminded me that I
    had some disk space left afterall:

    # df -k | awk 'NR==1{print $4}{s=0+s+$4}END{print "tot="s/1024/1024"G"}'
    Available
    tot=232.434G

    I'll wait ;-)

  20. Re: Slimming down Slackware

    goarilla (kevin.paulus@skynet.be) writes:
    > Michael Black wrote:
    >> "Martha Adams" (mhada@verizon.net) writes:
    >>> I think Mike at this thread's top, has a very good point.
    >>> There is just too much *stuff* out there. But working down
    >>> this thread I see responses signaling an unfortunate
    >>> and careless lack of concern by several responders to
    >>> effect that if you don't think like they do, if you don't want
    >>> or have skills and time to weed through a regular jungle of
    >>> stuff, then you're beneath contempt (and they are
    >>> certainly far superior to stupid *you*.)
    >>>

    >> Huh?
    >>
    >> WHen I first tried Linux, it was in late 2000. Debian on a 486
    >> with a 240meg hard drive and all of 10megs of RAM. All the fuss
    >> Debian does over dependencies made it appear far more difficult
    >> than it actually was, but having to decide what little I could
    >> install when I had no experience with most of the software was a big
    >> problem.
    >>
    >> Debian doesn't include Pine, I wanted that, and when Slackware came
    >> along in the form of "Slackware for Dummies" complete with 7.0 on
    >> the CDROM, a damaged cover made the price too good to turn down, I
    >> installed that. The issue of dependencies was out of mind, and what
    >> little I could install seemd to have no problem.
    >>
    >> I decided to use Linux I needed a better computer so I bought a 200MHz
    >> Pentium with 32megs of RAM and a 2gig hard drive. I could toss all
    >> of Slackware 7.0 on that hard drive, and still leave lots of space. It
    >> was far easier than having to make decisions.
    >>
    >> The reality is that most newcomers are likely running with a computer
    >> that they've been running Windows on and will have the space.
    >>
    >> I've had Slackware 10 something like 3 years, and I pretty much
    >> tossed all of it in the hard drive. After the years since the initial
    >> install, and obviously I've added other things including openoffice,
    >> I'm still only using 3.3gigs of hard drive space. That is not a lot
    >> of space in this age.
    >>
    >> Note that if I was hard up for hard drive space, I'd toss out a lot of
    >> applications. I'd likely be thinking about whether I really needed X,
    >> and if I really did, then figure out which Windows manager and desktop
    >> would give me enough without bloat. And no, I wouldn't be fussing with libs,
    >> precisely because the effort is too high for the return. /lib iss taking
    >> something like 25megs of hard drive space? Or am I misreading that?
    >>
    >> Sometimes you actually have to try to interpret the question. I took
    >> the original question as someone who just wants to get rid of clutter,
    >> it doesn't necessarily read that he has no hard drive space.
    >>
    >> Michael

    > /lib is there to provide only the libs necessary for a minimal
    > environment iirc
    > /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib (if you follow LSB and install a lot yourself),
    > /opt/*/lib are the places where most of the libs are hiding
    >
    > du -hs /usr/lib /usr/local/lib /opt/*/lib 2>/dev/null
    > 616M /usr/lib
    > 2.7M /usr/local/lib
    > 228M /opt/kde/lib
    >

    I thought of that while posting, and then it slipped my mind.

    But that really reinforces my point. Because once they start
    getting spread around, chances are they are more related to specific
    applications. And then by looking in /var/log/packages, you will
    start seeing libs connected with packages you are about to remove.
    For that matter, if the package installed them, they'll be removed
    when you remove the package.

    If netscape installs libgtksuperwin.so then chances are pretty
    good that the only other things that use the lib will be browsers
    that count on having netscape installed first. It's not a perfect
    method, but it's a start.

    The only way someone is going to end up with a lot of unused libs
    is if they had to install some package that didn't come with the
    distribution, and then needed to add a specific lib.

    General purpose libs, that come as packages and get installed as
    defaults but nothing else requires them, again one might start
    by looking in /var/log/packages to get a handle on the purpose
    of a given lib.

    Michael

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast