On 12/13/2011 07:26 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:03:55PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: >> On 12/13/2011 01:23 PM, Thomas Koch wrote: > >>> So is it ok to ship binaries in the source package that are only >>> required during build? Can I do the same with simple-build-tool, >>> which requires itself to build? > >> Depends on the need. It is quite common for compilers to have some >> binaries to do the bootstrapping. Scala uses that since some parts >> of the compiler are written in scala. And, of course, I make sure >> that I ship new binaries only in the Debian package. Another >> example is OCaml which needs an ocamlc to bootstrap itself. > > I think the traditional expectation here is that compilers will do > their initial bootstrap using an out-of-archive binary, and that once > in the archive, they'll be maintained using a self-build-depends > instead. >
You mean having a circular build-dependency? That isn't great :/ I've seen some packages doing that (don't recall which right now) but didn't like it, tbh. Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ee79983.2040...@dogguy.org
