block 504514 by 177057 thanks Hi Sam!
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 >>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/274824). >> >> 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. > > http://packages.debian.org/sid/clisp-dev > 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 [1], 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 [2], 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 dependency. I am sorry this is the only possible solution: as you wrote, a C compiler is a true dependency. > the rest is FAKE. Even libc6-dev? > 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 [3], 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 [4] (with another one being very similar [5]). 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, required. 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 [6], but the latter is simpler to implement. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca Footnotes: [1] http://bugs.debian.org/504514 [2] http://packages.debian.org/sid/bcc [3] http://bugs.debian.org/468090 [4] http://bugs.debian.org/177057 [5] http://bugs.debian.org/462085 [6] that is this bug is blocked by bug #177057 [3]
pgpg2Lp54demd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
