Allan McRae wrote: > On 19/07/10 06:24, Xyne wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I think the pacman package should explicitly list makepkg's optional > > dependencies, instead of simply assuming the presence of base and > > base-devel. > > You have reached the list for the development of pacman. For discussion > of distribution specific issues on packaging, you should use the > facilities provided by your distribution (e.g. mailing lists/forums/bug > tracker).
Suddenly I feel as if I'm in a Monty Python sketch, but I'll play along. See you at the next teller window. > > Using a minimal 32-bit chroot, the only way to keep it minimal is to > > try to run makepkg and then track down each dependency-related error > > one by one until it completes. > > The dependencies for makepkg are given at the top of makepkg itself. If > any are missing, provide a patch or file a bug report. # makepkg uses quite a few external programs during its execution. You # need to have at least the following installed for makepkg to function: # bsdtar (libarchive), bzip2, coreutils, fakeroot, find (findutils), # gettext, grep, gzip, openssl, sed, tput (ncurses), xz ==> Extracting Sources... /usr/bin/makepkg: line 663: file: command not found ==> Entering fakeroot environment... /usr/bin/makepkg: line 1749: file: command not found Please add "file" to that list and please don't tell me to submit a patch or file a bug report for something that trivial. There's enough pointless bureaucracy in the world as is.
