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

On 03/29, LoneVVolf wrote: > It looks like many here haven't looked at base group in a while, > or don't distinguish between base group and core repository. > > example : > systemd-sysvcompat is in base, systemd is NOT . > Both are in core repo . > > LW systemd-sysvcompat depends on systemd

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

On 2017-03-25 16:31 +0100 Tinu Weber wrote: >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

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

Em março 29, 2017 4:32 Baptiste Jonglez escreveu: So, I didn't think such a technical question would spark so much passion! Maybe this discussion should indeed go to arch-dev-public. In the meantime, I see 4 positions emerge from the discussion: 1) packages in "base" *should* be explicitely

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

On 29-03-17 09:32, Baptiste Jonglez wrote: So, I didn't think such a technical question would spark so much passion! Maybe this discussion should indeed go to arch-dev-public. In the meantime, I see 4 positions emerge from the discussion: 1) packages in "base" *should* be explicitely listed as

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

So, I didn't think such a technical question would spark so much passion! Maybe this discussion should indeed go to arch-dev-public. In the meantime, I see 4 positions emerge from the discussion: 1) packages in "base" *should* be explicitely listed as dependencies (either for mere "technical

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

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?

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?

> 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?

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?

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?

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

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

On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:33:02 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >On 03/23/2017 03:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:31:34 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general >> wrote: >>> nano (vi is the standard, and *I* don't even want to include that >>> because vim) >> >> For

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

On 03/23/2017 03:30 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:31:34 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >> nano (vi is the standard, and *I* don't even want to include that >> because vim) > > For modern Linux distros nano has become a standard as well. What's bad > with providing

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

On 03/23/2017 02:29 AM, Xyne wrote: >> Well, it also means, for example, that you don't have to keep listing >> things like bash and glibc in literally hundreds of PKGBUILDs. > > I understand that argument, but it is framed as if people are writing hundreds > of PKGBUILDs at once and the added

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

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:31:34 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >nano (vi is the standard, and *I* don't even want to include that >because vim) For modern Linux distros nano has become a standard as well. What's bad with providing it by base? Linux isn't UNIX from the 70s. I'm not using

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

>Well, it also means, for example, that you don't have to keep listing >things like bash and glibc in literally hundreds of PKGBUILDs. I understand that argument, but it is framed as if people are writing hundreds of PKGBUILDs at once and the added deps are overly tedious to include, when in fact

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

On 03/22/2017 11:24 PM, Xyne wrote: > The PKGBUILD should specify all necessary information for full dependency > resolution without assuming anything other than base-devel*. Extending the > assumption to the full base group just so some packagers can avoid typing a > few extra words *once* when

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

On 03/22/2017 10:02 PM, Daniel Micay via aur-general wrote: > Doesn't the standard chroot end up with all of base and base-devel or > is that not currently the case? The "standard chroot" is a help message in makechrootpkg saying ``` The chroot "root" directory must be created via the following

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

On 2017-03-22 19:17 -0400 Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >Given that the official instructions for installing Arch boils down to >"install the base group into a blank partition and arrange a bootloader >to boot that base group", I feel it is eminently reasonable to assume >all valid Arch

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

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 22:02:31 -0400 Daniel Micay via aur-general wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 01:38 +, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: > > Em março 22, 2017 18:12 Doug Newgard escreveu: > > > > > > There's no specific rule about it. Some packagers will include > > >

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

On 03/22/2017 09:07 PM, beest wrote: > I'm also on the side of explicitly assuming that base is installed (and > having the wiki and PKGBUILD dox reflect as much), but before that there > should possibly be a discussion about what actually belongs in base in > the first place. A few folks are of

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

On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 01:38 +, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: > Em março 22, 2017 18:12 Doug Newgard escreveu: > > > > There's no specific rule about it. Some packagers will include > > packages in base > > in the depends, some won't. It's completely up to them. > > > > But, if at least the

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

Em março 22, 2017 18:12 Doug Newgard escreveu: There's no specific rule about it. Some packagers will include packages in base in the depends, some won't. It's completely up to them. But, if at least the maintainers built their packages using a clean chroot, they would know what they are

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

On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 07:17:17PM -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: > Arch Linux does not support people who don't have systemd installed > though, and regarding Baptiste's initial example of glibc, if you don't > have glibc installed then your system is so screwed up it's not even >

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

On 03/22/2017 05:36 PM, NicoHood wrote: > On 03/22/2017 10:12 PM, Doug Newgard wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:45:13 +0100 >> Baptiste Jonglez wrote: >>> >>> Am I missing something obvious? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Baptiste >> >> There's no specific rule about it. Some

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

On 03/22/2017 10:12 PM, Doug Newgard wrote: > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:45:13 +0100 > Baptiste Jonglez wrote: >> >> Am I missing something obvious? >> >> Thanks, >> Baptiste > > There's no specific rule about it. Some packagers will include packages in > base > in the

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

Am 22. März 2017 21:56:57 MEZ schrieb "Bartłomiej Piotrowski" : >On 2017-03-22 21:51, Lex Black wrote: >> Base and base-devel are a requirement for using the AUR and those >packages shouldn't be added to the depends. >> >> See the prerequisites on the AUR wiki page. >>

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

On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:45:13 +0100 Baptiste Jonglez wrote: > > Am I missing something obvious? > > Thanks, > Baptiste There's no specific rule about it. Some packagers will include packages in base in the depends, some won't. It's completely up to them.

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

On 2017-03-22 21:51, Lex Black wrote: > Base and base-devel are a requirement for using the AUR and those packages > shouldn't be added to the depends. > > See the prerequisites on the AUR wiki page. > Well, no. Someone who builds a package is expected to have base-devel installed. It does

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

Base and base-devel are a requirement for using the AUR and those packages shouldn't be added to the depends. See the prerequisites on the AUR wiki page.

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

Hi, I was pretty confident that "base" packages should be listed as dependencies in PKGBUILDs, i.e. they are not assumed to be installed (as opposed to "base-devel" for build dependencies). This belief is reinforced by the fact that namcap gives dependencies error about packages such as glibc