Re: Circular Build-Depends; am I their only enemy?
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 04:43:10PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 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.
<shrug> and I can think of several languages with delusions of grandeur
doing the same. IIRC, the mess that had lead to removal of pm3 from
sarge and sid was in large part result of that.
> > > 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?
Yes. Nice in theory, but pain in the butt in practice. Of course it can't
be avoided in a bootstrap - nobody says it can. However, additional packages
demanding it == additional source of trouble.