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
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
> 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
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
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
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