On Sat, 2020-09-19 at 22:46 +1000, Wayne Blaszczyk via blfs-dev wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but with the right
> conditions, glib-2.66.0 will install gtk-doc-1.32.1.
> On a fresh build box I had gtk-doc-1.32 installed, and was in the
> process of building glib-2.66.0 (for the second time) when it failed
> with a git not found error.

I have not seen that, because I used the book instructions verbatim,
and we do not pass -Dgtk_doc=true (BTW, the book is wrong, there is no
"doc" option, it is "gtk_doc").

> On closer inspection, it was trying to git clone gtk-doc repo due to
> not meeting the gtk-doc >= 1.32.1 requirement as a fallback.
> After installing git, this time the glib-2.66.0 build was
> successfully and on closer inspection, it had actually installed the
> gtk-doc-1.32.1 subproject.
> what make it worse is that there is no gtk-doc 1.32.1 release, but in
> fact just the latest from git repo from what I can tell.
> This is not the first time I had noticed a "fallback" with a meson
> gnome package build recently. I'm not happy that dependencies are
> being installed without consent.

Well, we'll have more and more to live with that. It's already the case
for rust packages, python modules (setup.py downloads dependencies if
needed), perl modules if you use cpan, java jars if you use maven,
needed packages for libreoffice, and so on... With the notable
exception of Ken for perl modules, book editors don't always try to
mention those dependencies, because it is too time consuming, and it
means adding a lot of packages to the book.

Sometimes, downloading a non released version of a package is necessary
(see cairo, for example) for other packages to be functional.

In this case, gtk-doc is a circular dependency (it depends on glib2,
but can use an older version).

Maybe we could do like cairo, and provide gtk-doc "1.32.1" on anduin...

Pierre

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to