Re: [arch-dev-public] status of csup
2007/10/23, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 10/23/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
Dan McGee wrote:
On 10/23/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
Right now sudo is in Extra. I request to move it to Core/base-devel because it is needed by makepkg to be used by user (which is the right way).
Seems reasonable to me, +1 as long as it doesn't pull in other deps and has maintainer(s).
I will continue to maintain sudo in whatever location y'all deem fit. At the moment, it sounds like [core] but maybe not base-devel.
It only depends on pam and glibc.
I vote it moves to core. Whether in base or base-devel is not a huge deal to me, though it fits better in base.
Hm, csup is like another candidate for base-devel - required by abs. abs can also work with cvsup but we're going to dump it anyway because it's non-portable. It's only 49,6K, dependencies are gcc, zlib and openssl (all in Core). gcc dependency should be changed to gcc-libs, of course. What do you think? -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On 10/24/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/10/23, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 10/23/07, Paul Mattal <paul@mattal.com> wrote:
Dan McGee wrote:
On 10/23/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
Right now sudo is in Extra. I request to move it to Core/base-devel because it is needed by makepkg to be used by user (which is the right way).
Seems reasonable to me, +1 as long as it doesn't pull in other deps and has maintainer(s).
I will continue to maintain sudo in whatever location y'all deem fit. At the moment, it sounds like [core] but maybe not base-devel.
It only depends on pam and glibc.
I vote it moves to core. Whether in base or base-devel is not a huge deal to me, though it fits better in base.
Hm, csup is like another candidate for base-devel - required by abs. abs can also work with cvsup but we're going to dump it anyway because it's non-portable. It's only 49,6K, dependencies are gcc, zlib and openssl (all in Core). gcc dependency should be changed to gcc-libs, of course. What do you think?
Feel free to commit the change to CVS to change that dependency from gcc to gcc-libs, even if you don't do a rebuild. Second, if we do move it, we should dump cvsup, not flounder around with what we are doing now. But the reasons against moving it (and I hate to say it) is that we may not continue to use CVS so its use will no longer be necessary. -Dan
On 10/24/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
Feel free to commit the change to CVS to change that dependency from gcc to gcc-libs, even if you don't do a rebuild.
Second, if we do move it, we should dump cvsup, not flounder around with what we are doing now. But the reasons against moving it (and I hate to say it) is that we may not continue to use CVS so its use will no longer be necessary.
Agreed. I'm tagging this in my todo list. If no one gets to it before tonight, I will do it. Any problems with csup replaces=(cvsup) and dumping cvsup?
participants (3)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dan McGee
-
Roman Kyrylych