[Pkg-pascal-devel] lazarus binary package doesn't depend on lcl?

[Abou Al Montacir]

Hi Paul,
On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 18:55 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Abou and the rest,
> 
> On 30-05-16 10:16, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> > I didn't check the control diff, but viewed the images and I really
> > find dep_lazarus_new_nr.png very nice and very clear.
> > I do agree completely wit that except for the dependency between
> > lc-qt-1.6 on lcl-gtk-1.6. For me this is legacy from when there was no
> > qt support for LCL on Debian. I think this should be removed.
> It can't. The dependency is there because there used to be a huge pile
> of duplicate files that I removed by having this dependency tree. Most
> files are in nogui, some are in gtk and only qt specific stuff is in qt.
OK I remember now that we already discussed that. But isn't the right way to
create a third package lcl-gui-common?
This looks more logical and could make sense if we package more LCL bakends.
> > 
> > > 
> > > I don't know yet where I think the link between the lcl and lazarus-src
> > > should be (Recommends between ...)
> > > 

> > 
> > I do agree that lcl-1.6 should recommend lazarus-src. By the way, we
> > don't really need Lazarus sources, we only need LCL sources! The name
> > and the content is somewhat wrong. It should probably become lcl-src and
> > get the IDE specific code removed. This was difficult for old Lazarus
> > versions, but now the split between LCL and IDE is more clear.
> Ok. Do I understand correctly that you want a new package lcl-src which
> contains most of the current lazarus-src, while leaving the ide stuff in
> lazarus-src?
> 

Once you have lcl-src, then no need for the rest of the files. The IDE sources
are not useful for users. Only LCL source are.
So in that sense lcl-src will replace lazarus-src while removing non useful
files.
> > 
> > > 
> > > I also wonder if it is worth it to keep the lazarus-ide-gtk(|-1.6) and
> > > lazarus-ide-qt(|-1.6) packages.
> > > 

> > 
> > I think it is important to provide for each clan their IDE. I personally
> > never used Qt IDE, but I know people that do the same with gtk+ one.
> I believe you misunderstand me here. We have meta package called gtk and
> qt (without the version number). However, in one upstream version, I
> think we only ship one, so the gtk-# and qt-# are non-sense on top of
> gtk2-# and qt4-#.
> 

Do you mean you want to remove the meta-packages lazarus-gtk-1.6 and versus
lazarus-gtk2-1.6? In that case yes we can remove the first one. Same thing for
Qt.
> > 
> > > 
> > > PS2: note the circular dependency between lazarus-ide-1.6,
> > > lazarus-ide-gtk-1.6 and lazarus-ide-gtk2-1.6 (and lazarus-ide-1.6,
> > > lazarus-ide-qt-1.6, and lazarus-ide-qt4-1.6). I have a bug in my Winff
> > > package about circular dependencies, seems like we should get rid of that
> > > 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/06/msg02111.html> > > 
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg01101.html
> > > 
> > > <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/msg01101.html*%0A>
> > > >
> > > 

> > 
> > I'm not sure we can avoir such circular dependency unless we duplicate
> > some files or add another package.
> > 

> 
> 
> If I read those links, I believe the idea typically is to add the
> additional package indeed.

We can make lazarus-ide depend on either lazarus-ide-gtk-1.6 or lazarrus-ide-qt-
1.6 and make both depend on lazarus-ide-1.6
This way we solve the issue without adding  an extra package.
-- 
Cheers,
Abou Al Montacir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20160530/72ee4f5e/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-pascal-devel/attachments/20160530/72ee4f5e/attachment.sig>