On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:17:27PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Konstantinos Margaritis (markos@genesi-usa.com) [101220 23:04]: > > a. identify all the circural dependencies in the package tree > > (probably something ilke that is already done using some tool) > > b. Modify some packages to actually separate into 2 _source_ packages, > > a -core and a -full. The -core could be built with only minimal > > functionality and just enable the needed package to build. > I doubt that you get enough buy-in from the maintainers to do that. > I suggest a different way: Add a new "bootstrap mode" to the build > utilities (as per DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS='bootstrap=yes'), in which a > source package can be built even if packages marked as not relevant > for the architecture "bootstrap" are not there. Also, not all binary > packages of the source package need to be produced, but the packages > which are produced need to be technical functional (but might be > without documentation, and with an degraded user interface). (Also, > these binary packages are marked with Bootstrap: yes, to be able to > identify them.) > (Basically, that adds Build-Recommends, in addition to Build-Depends.) cf. https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Specs/M/ARMAutomatedBootstrap, a proposal for systematically breaking build-dependency loops with multi-stage package builds. This would cleanly allow breaking any loops, including possible nested build-dep loops. I'm sure Loïc would welcome input on refining the design, not to mention help implementing Debian buildd infrastructure. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature