[Build-common-hackers] Re: circular dependency fun

Jonas Smedegaard jonas@jones.dk
Fri, 3 Oct 2003 22:44:30 +0200

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:14:39 -0400
Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 14:11, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > I don't think it is.  Debian is full of these circular dependancies
> > - The ability to simply bootstrap the system isn't a release
> > requirement - Which is good, because taken to an extreme, you need
> > gcc to build gcc.
> Right.

Bootstrapping a system is what packages in base are about, and yes,
that is more tricky. Packages outside of base must not have circular
build-dependencies. I bet gcc does not have circular build-dependencies

I believe circular build-dependencies to be a bug in Debian.

> > I think we might already accomidate this by coping gracefully if
> > springgraph isn't there.=20
> Yep, exactly.  More specifically my vague rule is that the actual
> requirements are listed on the first line of the Build-Depends (right
> now just debhelper); everything after it is noncritical and can be
> safely deleted.  (If that doesn't work, it's definitely a bug).

I suggest then removing those packages. They should be added as
build-recommends or build-suggests instead, the day those tags are valid
in Debian.

I believe it to be a bug of either libgd2-X or cdbs to both
(indirectly) build-depend on each other, and I believe it to make most
sense to keep low the dependencies on a tool to build packages rather
than a library. Especially when the dependency is there only "for fun":
To build a graph of packages using the tool.

 - Jonas

* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 - Enden er n=E6r: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm