Re: Bug#671302: Circular Build Dependencies (was Bug#671302: libav: circular dependency between libav and opencv)
On 04/05/12 21:45, Andres Mejia wrote:
> On May 4, 2012 4:43 PM, "Fabian Greffrath" <email@example.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
>> > libav -> x264 -> libav
>> AFAICT the x264 frontend uses libav whereas libav uses the libx264 shared
>> library. So theortically (!) this issue could be solved by two separate
>> source packages for the x264 frontend and the library.
This would also be pretty straightforward via the DebianBootstrap
proposal from the wiki: the stage-1 build of x264 would only compile the
library, and omit the front-end.
I believe the current state-of-the-art for bootstrapping new
architectures, or getting a particularly "slow" architecture caught up,
is essentially to do the equivalent of that proposal, but by hand
(dpkg-buildpackage -d, and maybe temporary source changes that are never
dbus and dbus-glib also have cyclic build-dependencies: you can break
the cycle by ignoring the dbus-glib dependency (which means most of the
dbus regression tests aren't compiled), then building dbus-glib, then
rebuilding dbus against it. In the absence of a finalized version of the
bootstrap proposal, this is documented in comments in debian/control.
> This doesn't resolve the issue with opencv though.
What's the cycle here? Can it also be broken by temporarily taking out
similar optional functionality - tests or front-ends or something?