On March 18, 2019 8:39:45 AM GMT+01:00, "Bartłomiej Piotrowski via arch-dev-public" email@example.com wrote:
The previous discussion doesn't answer (or even if it does, I don't care to re-read it at this point) if the idea behind the new metapackage is to be implicit dependency of all packages or just optional thing like base group always was.
Currently maintainers either put actual dependencies into depends=(), including glibc if something dynamically links to libc.so or assume that base is group expected to be present on every installation, which I wholeheartedly disagree with, because I can just instead use Slackware if I weren't caring about dependency system.
I don't quite see why we are pulling together two topics into one, implicit or no implicit dependencies are NOT depending on the metapackage in any mean. It's just a consistent and proper way to handle dependencies of that base. It is free to exist with or without explicit dependencies. I frankly am on the no imicit dependency front and my packages depend on glibc as well still I want to make that base a properly dependency handles meta package. As we are drifting up here to the transitive dependencies topic let it be separated from the original topic, base is about the foundation for a system but as metapackage to have actually meaningful dependency handling of that set. Implicit dependencies are something else.