Re: History of Debian bootstrapping/porting efforts
Does this "whole dependency graph" include the implicit build-dependency
every package has on build-essential?
Since yesterday, my tools can now finally turn the whole dependency
I don't see why it would be impossible to hack up the glib source
package to not rely on pkg-config. Whether that is a good idea or not is
The above case for example has no
alternative solution as the cycle is of length two and has no other way
of braking it than building pkg-config without libglib2.0-dev. Since
this is unlikely to be possible
It seems pretty clear to me that there is a "core" of software that will
need to be cross-built as the first stage of bootstrapping a port.
Obviously "essential" and "build-essential" fall into this category but
while i'm sure there are ways one could hack away the cycles and make
things like pkg-config and debhelper natively bootstrapable I don't
think there is much point in doing so.
and since the assumption is that only
build dependencies might be dropped when necessary but not binary
dependencies, a possible solution might be cross compilation.
What i'd ideally like to see is for a tool to be able to generate a
directed acyclic graph of "build jobs" (some cross, some native, there
should be an option in the tool as to whether to preffer native or
cross-build jobs) that takes the user from having no packages for the
target architecture to having a set of bootstrap packages that can be
used to seed the "regular" building process.