Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

2017-03-25 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 11:26:35 -0700, Yardena Cohen via aur-general wrote: >We only have a circular process: packages shouldn't be >removed because that might break some PKGBUILDs, and PKGBUILDs >continue to omit dependencies because they're implied. Perhaps a good point. I guess this is something

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

2017-03-25 Thread Yardena Cohen via aur-general
I think we should encourage packagers to name *all* their depends and makedepends, even if they're in base{,-devel}. Not require (yet) but encourage. My problem with this whole discussion is there's no hard data. There's no clear empirical process for deciding what should be in base{,-devel}. We

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

2017-03-25 Thread Ralf Mardorf
> On 25 Mar 2017, at 16:31, Tinu Weber wrote: > > Now, is that no longer Arch Linux? I would say Yes. But with the current > policy, it appears that No. Not because I'm running unsupported > software, but because I just got rid of a few things that I don't need. > Same goes

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

2017-03-25 Thread Tinu Weber
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 09:19:43 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 06:47:07 +, Xyne wrote: > >A bash script should depend only on bash. > > Hi Xyne, > > Seems to be better it would depend on coreutilsor do you asume a bash > script only depends on bash intern commands and

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

2017-03-25 Thread Ralf Mardorf
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 06:47:07 +, Xyne wrote: >A bash script should depend only on bash. Hi Xyne, Seems to be better it would depend on coreutilsor do you asume a bash script only depends on bash intern commands and woun't use external commands such as e.g. basename? [rocketmouse@archlinux

Re: [aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

2017-03-25 Thread Xyne
On 2017-03-23 09:32 -0400 Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >And a system that does not have glibc installed is not a valid use-case. >A system without bash is not a valid use-case. A system without systemd >is not a valid use-case, regardless of how many completely-unsupported >people kludge