On 29/01/13 23:18, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 29/01/13 22:24, Xyne wrote:
Yup. For post_upgrade we can depend on 'base' being installed.
Why are you assuming anything? If those packages are needed, why not make them explicit dependencies?
I don't see how that turned into depending on all of "base" to be installed either.
Because then you can not have glibc depend on filesystem and everything breaks during install - as was explained earlier in the thread.
And assuming bash and coreutils for post_upgrade is quite reasonable, given your system is in a state to run pacman...
I thougth the point was about base dependency. Using pacman deps inside pacman scripts is obvious. Except if there is strong pacman version requirement to get a depends. But we are not here.
Do a pactree on pacman and note that both the packages removed from the filesystem dependencies are in its dependency tree... I consider the "base" group only as an installation helper and agree we should always specify dependencies that are needed. But central packages to the system require some adjustments to ensure their installation order due to dependency cycles. There are very few packages like that - filesystem being one, particularly now the symlinks are needed for the ELF interpreter. And the only assumption being made is that coreutils and bash are installed for post_upgrade. If you do a -Qi on those packages on your system, you will see it is not possible for that to happen and your system being in a state to run a pacman update. Allan