[cl-debian] Bug#177057: [Debian] clisp base/full linking sets (was Re: [Debian] clisp-dev dependencies)

[Luca Capello]

Hi Sam!

I moved the discussion about the linking sets to bug #177057 [4] where
it belongs to, please continue there (again, no subscription required).

I also cc:ed the original submitter for that bug and the one for bug
#462085 [5], since I consider the second a duplicate of the first.
If Jörg Sommer will not disagree in one week, I will merge the two bugs.

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]:
>>> 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.
>
> why don't you want to ship one package with two linking sets?!

I am fine with one package with two linking sets, but having two
separate packages is IMHO a better solution, since it will help people
who wants a minimal clisp installation.

Is there any disadvantage with two separate packages?  What do the
original submitters think?

Thx, bye,
Gismo / Luca

>> Footnotes: 
>> [4] http://bugs.debian.org/177057
>> [5] http://bugs.debian.org/462085
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 314 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/cl-debian/attachments/20081123/1480b1b0/attachment.sig>