Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?

2011-02-27 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
Hi, In the pkg-ruby-extras team, we are currently discussing some big changes in our packaging tools. A problem arises for libraries that have a large architecture-independent part that can be shared between the various implementations of ruby interpreters (ruby1.8, ruby1.9.1, jruby, rubinius), b

Re: Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?

2011-02-27 Thread Petter Reinholdtsen
[Lucas Nussbaum] > However, that creates many small dependency cycles. I am under the > impression that dependency cycles are considered bad, but that we > have many of them already, and that no important part of our > infrastructure or tools really has problems with them. Also, they > are limited

Re: Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?

2011-02-27 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le dimanche 27 février 2011 à 16:31 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > Ideally, we would have binary packages named like that: > ruby-foo: arch-indep part of the foo library > ruby1.8-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.8 > ruby1.9.1-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built f

Re: Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?

2011-02-28 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi, circular dependencies are bad for a variety of reasons already explained here (plus probably some others), but... On Sonntag, 27. Februar 2011, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > - Piuparts is not able to come up with a sensible order to test >packages when there are dependency loops. A work

Re: Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?

2011-03-01 Thread Vincent Danjean
On 27/02/2011 16:31, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > But then, we have a problem, because: > - ruby-foo need one of (ruby1.8-foo, ruby1.9.1-foo, jruby-foo, > rubinius-foo) installed to work correctly I find this dependency tedious. If someone installs ruby-foo, how can he expect it to work if he does no

Re: Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?

2011-03-01 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
On 02/27/2011 04:31 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Ideally, we would have binary packages named like that: > ruby-foo: arch-indep part of the foo library > ruby1.8-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.8 > ruby1.9.1-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.9.1 Here you'

Re: Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?

2011-03-01 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 01/03/11 at 10:44 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 02/27/2011 04:31 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Ideally, we would have binary packages named like that: > > ruby-foo: arch-indep part of the foo library > > ruby1.8-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.8 > > ruby1.9.1-foo: arch-

Re: Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?

2011-03-01 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
On 03/01/2011 11:17 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 01/03/11 at 10:44 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: >> On 02/27/2011 04:31 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: >>> Ideally, we would have binary packages named like that: >>> ruby-foo: arch-indep part of the foo library >>> ruby1.8-foo: arch-dep part of the foo li

Re: Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?

2011-03-01 Thread Dominique Dumont
Le dimanche 27 février 2011 16:31:29, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > But then, we have a problem, because: > - ruby-foo need one of (ruby1.8-foo, ruby1.9.1-foo, jruby-foo, > rubinius-foo) installed to work correctly ok > - ruby1.8-foo, ruby1.9.1-foo, jruby-foo, rubinius-foo need ruby-foo > instal