Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 207391
security.h includes Xauth.h which is in libXau
Last modified: 2014-06-18 05:08:50 EDT
The file security.h includes Xauth.h which is in the libXau-devel package; we
can't add a dependency on libXau devel though, as that would produce cycles in
the dependency graph.
Sure you can. Just means you get either neither package, or both. Right?
Is it only a runtime dependency cycle? In that case it isn't
problematic, but if it is a build-time dependency cycle, then
it is an issue.
Okay, I see the problem. This would be an issue for arch bootstrap, because:
- you need to build xorg-x11-proto-devel first, to build the rest of the X stack
- but if you made proto-devel Require: libXau-devel, you wouldn't be able to
satisfy the builddeps for libXau.
No big deal though, we'll just hide it behind %if build_bootstrap like we
already do for libGL-devel. Fixed in proto-devel 7.3-2.
I think that this issue should be reported upstream. In the
mean time your solution seems to be the best one.
Filed upstream -- https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12645
Please check, that I haven't screwed up that upstream report.
(In reply to comment #5)
> Filed upstream -- https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12645
> Please check, that I haven't screwed up that upstream report.
The upstream bug report is not very clear. There are mentions to
the rpms, it is not very clean. In my opinion it should be something
like (replace <foo> with the Xorg package name that contains security.h):
The file security.h in package <foo> includes Xauth.h which is in the
libXau package. But libXau also requires security.h. Therefore there
is a build-time dependency cycle that complicates bootstraping builds
of those packages.
Just go ahead and put there a comment, please.
What should I put instead of <foo>? Otherwise said what is the
upstream package containing security.h?
I don't have an account in the Xorg bugzilla, so I'd prefer not
to put it myself, but if I have to I'll create an account.
Better -- https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12645#c1 ???