I think we've been over this before, but I forget what was decided. Should we, or should we not, be explicitly listing deps such as ncurses, openssl, readline, and so on? These are all in base, and namcap seems to think it's not necessary. I personally disagree with namcap here - I think any link-time dependencies of a particular app should be explicitly listed, but that's me. Did we decide something here? Am I just clueless that I can't find it in the archives? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Monceaux Date: Jan 28, 2008 2:17 PM Subject: Re: [arch-general] New User(sort of) and a packaging question To: General Discusson about Arch Linux On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Travis Willard wrote:

I think namcap ignores dependencies in the 'base' group, since everyone is expected to have base installed, maybe? I'm not 100% sure of its internals in this sense.

That sounds like a reasonable possibility. To get an idea of whether it's more common to explicitly list base dependencies or leave them out I checked a couple of other packages that depend on ncurses. extra/editors/vim and aur/unsupported/alpine both depend on ncurses but don't have ncurses listed as a dependency. extra/network/irssi and extra/network/mutt, on the other hand, explicitly list ncurses as a dependency. So, it looks like there's a mixture in both official and aur based packages.

I'd say leave them in - they're clearly needed.

I looked through the Arch Packaging Standards page and didn't really get a clear impression on which is the preferred method, but I might have missed something. So, unless I hear otherwise, I'll explicitly list them. Kevin http://www.RawFedDogs.net http://www.WacoAgilityGroup.org Bruceville, TX Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes. Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla!!!