Having heard both sides of the coin here I think I lean toward agreeing with Eli in this case. And as it appears to be partly a matter of personal taste anyway, I'll be leaving the dependencies as is.
Thank you both for your replies. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Levente Polyak via aur-general < > > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Actually there is no strict rule that base must be installed, its just a > >> strong recommendation. While most systems would be quite useless without > >> having glibc, its still a first level dependencies that a package uses > >> and therefor should be declared explicitly and not implicitly. > >> Opinions vary, but if you ask me its cleaner to explicitly state first > >> level dependencies, no matter from where they may be implicitly > >> available (so yes, personally i add both, glibc and bash if required). > > On 02/27/2018 08:48 PM, Adam Levy via aur-general wrote: > > Good to know. I will update my PKGBUILDs accordingly. > > > > Thank you > > > > Whereas I in contrast believe that glibc and bash even as first level > dependencies make no sense to add, due to the fact that *all*, not > *most* systems would be useless without it, since glibc is used for > literally everything and if you rebuild the entire distro to use musl > libc or something then you are no longer using something even vaguely > resembling Arch Linux. (And if you want to do so anyway then your > toolchain probably pulls in musl automatically, and adding a dependency > on glibc just because the default compiler for makepkg uses glibc would > be wrong from the perspective of the PKGBUILD.) > > So as Levente said, there are no real rules anywhere here. I like to > think that the reason namcap warns about glibc is only because it would > need to be explicitly excluded, and no one can agree on what to do here. > > So, disregard namcap entirely, as it is often wrong about *lots* of > things, and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense to list > glibc here. > > ... > > FWIW I understand where Levente is coming from in the general sense with > regard to first-level dependencies that are implicitly available due to > another dependency -- those can often cause issues when the other > dependency unexpectedly drops its own dependency. > > I just think glibc, bash, coreutils, util-linux, and other similar > packages should be a special exception. ;) > > Maybe one day we will actually decide on a "base-sytem" metapackage that > guarantees that all Arch systems have these available. Until then, this > is really a bikeshed discussion. > > -- > Eli Schwartz > Bug Wrangler and Trusted User > >
