Bug#504514: [Debian] clisp-dev dependencies

Luca Capello luca at pca.it
Sun Nov 23 17:09:45 UTC 2008

Hi Sam!

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 04:44:24 +0100, Sam Steingold wrote:
>> * Luca Capello <yhpn at cpn.vg> [2008-11-05 00:01:59 +0100]:
>>> 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 [2], which I do not think it can
>> be used with clisp.
>> [...]
>> [2] http://packages.debian.org/sid/bcc
> why?!

I am not a compiler expert and I assumed that given the description of
the bcc package [2], but it seems I was wrong :-)

>>> the rest is FAKE.
>> Even libc6-dev?
> I am a little hazy on the package specifics.
> can one compile a C file without libc6-dev?

On Debian, .so libraries are provided by -dev packages, thus without
libc6-dev even the "Hello, world!" example fails to compile:
luca at gismo:~$ dpkg -s libc6-dev | grep Status
Status: purge ok not-installed

luca at gismo:~$ cat hello-world.c
#include <stdio.h>
main () {
  printf("Hello, world!");

luca at gismo:~$ gcc hello-world.c
hello-world.c:1:19: error: stdio.h: No such file or directory
hello-world.c: In function ‘main’:
hello-world.c:3: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in \
 function ‘printf’
luca at gismo:~$

> if yes, libc6-dev should not be a clisp-dev requirement
> (just a recommendation).
> if no, libc6-dev should be a requirement of the c-compiler virtual
> package.

Apart the fact that the c-compiler virtual package cannot have any
requirement (in this case it will not be anymore a virtual package), I
do not think libc6-dev should be a requirement.  The rationale is that
you could want to use libraries not provided by Debian.  FYI, gcc only
Recommends: libc6-dev.

Given the above, libc6-dev should be either completely removed from
clisp-dev or added as Recommends:.  I would go for the latter.

>>> 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 [3], libffcall1 is not statically
>> pre-linked into lisp.a, but I have never tested for this.
> even if it is not,
> http://packages.debian.org/sid/alpha/libffcall1/filelist
> says that libcallback.so is in the libffcall1 package, not
> libffcall1-dev.

Actually, is the other way around: libffcall1 provides the versioned
runtime libraries (the physical .so.0.0.0 file and the .so.0 symlink),
while libffcall1-dev provides the developmental one (the .so symlink).

Thus, if clisp-dev needs plain .so libraries it needs to Depends: on the
packages providing them.

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/attachments/20081123/c823863f/attachment.pgp 

More information about the pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list