--- Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2007/11/16, Johannes Held <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > "Aaron Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I do know one way to resolve this.... we can > ship something like dash > > > for /bin/sh _only_ and depend on that... sounds > like a headache, but > > > it'd work > > Would it be an option that glibc depends on a > specific bash-version? > > Something like > > glibc -> depends on bash=>3.0 > > So, you can use your old bash to create the new > glibc? > > > > Or did I miss something completey? > > > > This won't work when installing Arch in chroot, I > guess. >
This all sounds familiar -- I had some similar problems with "pacman --root" back in August http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-August/009148.html and as a result I added a paragraph to the "Talk" section of the "Install Arch from within another distro" article in the Wiki http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Talk:Install_Arch_from_within_another_distro (see the "Install scriptlets won't run!" entry). I'm not a dev or anything, but I think putting packages which are essentially executables (eg. bash) in the dependency array of packages which are core libraries (eg. glibc) just because of post_install requirements causes more problems than it solves. We just need to advertise (for example, in the wiki) that in the rare cases that glibc not depending on bash causes a problem (eg. pacman --root), you need to install core twice. Maybe there needs to be some sort of basic guidelines about what is allowed in depends array for core libraries to try to avoid cyclic dependencies like these. Cheers, Jeremy Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at http://mail.yahoo.ca _______________________________________________ arch mailing list arch@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
