Re: Circular Build-Depends; am I their only enemy?
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:38:49PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> I like this solution. In fact, I like it a lot. (Of course, I also like
> the concept that Debian main in stable and testing should be closed sets,
> in terms of build-dependancies). I'd love to see a Build-Recommends for,
> say, texinfo or emacs (yes, we have things that Build-Depend on emacs...)
> if all they're being used for is documentation that *should* be there in an
> official package going to ftp-master, but which isn't crucial to skip if
> you're, say, building it solely to be able to build emacs...
FWIW, we might be better off with per-target build-depends and something
along the lines of having minimal-gcc that would
* provide c-compiler
* include no *.info, etc.
* have minimal build-depends - with no dependencies on texinfo, let
alone the stuff needed only for Ada/Java/whatnot.
If the set of packages could be layered, so that layer 0 would
consist of build-essential ones and have build-depends possible to satisfy
within itself and layer n+1 would have build-depends possible to satisfy
within layers 0--n...
As for the packages that depend on themselves... Either they
*can* be built with standard tools, in which case you can have something
along the lines of
Binary: foo-bootstrap, foo
Build-depends: <common stuff>
Build-depends[foo-bootstrap]: <what's needed for bootstrap build>
Build-depends[foo]: foo-bootstrap
with foo providing foo-bootstrap
or you simply can't build the sucker without itself anymore, in which case
it either should be accepted as part of toolchain (which shouldn't be done
easily) or it should be dropped from the very beginning.
Again, see the story of pm3 eviction...
Reply to: