Bug#504514: [Debian] clisp-dev dependencies (was Re: debian clisp package)
luca at pca.it
Tue Nov 4 23:01:59 UTC 2008
block 504514 by 177057
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:49:52 +0100, Sam Steingold wrote:
>>> 3. clisp-dev appears to depend on gcc 4.1 (at least when I try to
>>> install clisp-dev on ubuntu, it wants to install gcc 4.1 in addition
>>> to the standard gcc 4.2, see
>> It seems that the version you tried is an old one, since the one in
>> Debian does not depend on any gcc version (both clisp and clisp-dev
>> packages), at least from version 1:2.43-1.
>>> this is eminently wrong. even if clisp itself is compiled with gcc
>>> 4.1, it can link with modules compiled with gcc 4.2, so there is no
>>> reason for clisp-dev to pull gcc 4.1 (the same for bison, xutils,
>>> groff &c &c).
>> This could be a problem for Debian: if we build clisp with a specific
>> gcc version, then we should depend on that version, since different gcc
>> versions can be installed at the same time.
> Package: clisp-dev (1:2.44.1-4.1 and others)
> it depends on a whole lot of stuff.
Thank you for having submitted it to the Debian BTS as bug #504514 ,
I really appreciate.
I cc:ed the Debian bug: since this is a Debian-specific problem, the
discussion should continue there. If you prefer to keep the clisp-devel
mailing list informed (which I think it is worth it), please always cc:
the Debian bug as well (no subscription required).
> the __ONLY__ true dependencies are clisp & a C compiler (not
> necessarily gcc).
Thanks to `apt-cache showpkg c-compiler` I discovered that the only
other C compiler Debian ships is bcc , which I do not think it can be
used with clisp.
I will anyway add the c-compiler virtual package to the clisp-dev
Depends:. However, if someone use a C compiler not shipped by Debian,
it should create a fake package providing c-compiler to satifsy the
I am sorry this is the only possible solution: as you wrote, a C
compiler is a true dependency.
> the rest is FAKE.
> clisp-dev does NOT require bison/debhelper/groff/gettext/xutils.
I need to investigate why these were put there, but at least debhelper
sounds strange. For the others, read below.
> You might think that libffcall1-dev & libsigsegv-dev might be
> required, but they are NOT, they are already pre-linked (statically)
> into lisp.a.
According to Debian bug #468090 , libffcall1 is not statically
pre-linked into lisp.a, but I have never tested for this.
If both are statically pre-linked into lisp.a, while I agree that the
depedencies are useless, makevars still wants to include them.
> readline-dev x11-dev et al are required only for building images on
> top of the full linking set, not on top of the base linking set, so
> they are at most "strongly recommended".
The problem is double:
1) ATM Debian does not ship two clisp linking sets, despite a wishlist
bug is openend for more than 5 years now  (with another one being
very similar ). I already planned to solve this issue splitting
the Debian clisp package into clisp-base and clisp-full, but I have
not had time yet :-(
2) makevars wants to include all of the libraries listed in clisp-dev
Depends:, that is why these libraries are, in the Debian world,
The solution can be double as well:
a) as soon as the clisp package is splitted into clisp-base and
clisp-full, then clisp-dev would depend on clisp-base, which means
not accessory libraries in makevars
b) moving all accessory libraries into Recommends:, with a big note in
the README.Debian which explains the reason for this, pointing at
this bug as well.
The former solution is my preferred, since it is cleaner and more
logical , but the latter is simpler to implement.
Gismo / Luca
 that is this bug is blocked by bug #177057 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/attachments/20081105/dd589c6e/attachment.pgp
More information about the pkg-common-lisp-devel