2007/11/5, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 11/4/07, Jason Chu <jason@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 05:55:07PM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
On Nov 4, 2007 5:20 PM, Jason Chu <jason@archlinux.org> wrote:
If I use the mkarchroot and makechrootpkg scripts to build packages, I need to have sudo installed. Using the current mkarchroot options I have to specify "base base-devel sudo". I just need to know if we're planning on putting sudo into base-devel or if I should update the mkarchroot and makechrootpkg scripts to reflect this.
I put it into base/support, just like ssh and other tools that aren't "essential" but also aren't development tools. So no, I think its going to stay right there.
Should we create a base-support group so that mkarchroot can create a chroot with 'mkarchroot chroot base base-devel base-support'?
Another group is redundant iMO.
How's that any different though? Seems like you're actually going to get MORE than you need (ssh and the like).
I know it's not pretty, but I couldn't figure out a better way to handle sudo. And I don't want to restructure the repos strictly for the sake of one tool
I don't understand what repos restructuring has to do here. I guess you're talking about "category (CVS subdir) and package group should match". But we're on a way to changing SCM anyway, so I would't care about this now (neither SVN nor git nor any other proposal had any mention of category subdirs - they restrict flexibility and give nothing good). In a thread discussing moving sudo to Core I explained why I wanted to put it in base-devel group: because IMO base-devel should contain all packages required to build a typical package with makepkg, thus sudo should be in base-devel IMO. Sure, it is not a development tool, but neither is fakeroot. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)