[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Circular Build-Depends; am I their only enemy?

On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 16:05, viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk

Please pay attention to the etiquette of the debian-devel mailing list. 
I am subscribed and did not require a Cc.

> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 03:07:53PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 01:53, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > 
> > > Am I the only people who things that, ideally, one could build Debian 
> > > from source, starting with only Essential and Build-Essential packages?
> > > 
> > Yup, you're the only one.
> > 
> > I'd be entertained how you intend to resolve the fact that "make" uses
> > "make" to be built.  (Or that "gcc" requires a C compiler!)
> make and gcc *are* build-essential.
Strangely enough, *I* know that.

I interpreted his "starting with" as being the set of packages you start
building from source.

And frankly, I don't see why build-essential packages should be special
in this way.  I can immediately think of several "make replacement"
packages (ant, for example) that use themselves to build themselves.

> > The way you resolve circular build dependencies is to bootstrap the
> > package in some way, this may mean ignoring some missing depends or it
> > may simply mean installing the binary package in the first place.
> That's wonderful.  Especially when you are porting to new architecture -
> the binary packages are real easy to obtain out of thin air. 
Ever heard of cross-compiling?

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: