On 09/17/2017 03:55 PM, Levente Polyak wrote:
On September 17, 2017 3:44:26 PM GMT+02:00, Lex Black <[email protected]>
wrote:
Am 17. September 2017 15:07:48 MESZ schrieb Morten Linderud
<[email protected]>:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 07:48:24AM -0400, Daniel Capella via
aur-general wrote:
Input: https://ptpb.pw/7YEJ
Output: https://ptpb.pw/-L5i
Missing "python" in the depends array.
Any specific reason?
It is indirectly covered through the dependencies.
Because technically it's a very direct first level dependency. It's quite
unlikely that a first level python lib dependency will ever not depend on
python itself, however it is a quite bad trend to remove any first level
dependency just because another one covers it on the second level.
For c libs it is also easier to fetch things that need a rebuild rather then
grepping for sonames that are linked against it.
Either way, all first level dependencies should always be defined, personally I
call anything else a bad practice.
Of course one could easily fix a missing first level dependency when another
lib drops it, however that's not the point, it still remains technically
incorrect.
Cheers,
Levente
Frankly, I didn't consider this. Thanks for pointing it out, I'm
becoming increasingly aware that dependencies must be handled really
carefully.
I've updated the package to include python as mandatory dependency.
Thanks,
Tobias
