On Friday 19 November 2010 16:16:14 Andreas Radke wrote:

Any reason why you are touching my pkg? I can't remember a bug report or a mail from you.

I've just seen it on Allan's list for the core rebuilds. But shouldn't the rebuilds start _after_ a toolchain bump itself he expected this after a binutils and glibc release?

For the dependencies I'm no more sure about our own rules. Yes, a command line editor is known to run from a shell but it's technically not a linked dep we need to install the nano pkg.

In the past we agreed that it can be expected to have the whole base group installed on any Arch users system at runtime and the base-devel group and build time and so we didn't add additional deps needed from these groups to build and run the packages. Did we change that? Would the Arch iso installer fail? Or is it just for perfection? I am _really_ sorry for this Andreas. I thought that my help was needed here and a that a rebuild wasn't a problem for you.

Sorry to Eric, Tobias and Thomas too, I hope that I didn't annoyed them updating lilo, libusb, wireless-regdb. Really was not my intention. -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer

On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:38:58 +0100, Andreas Radke <a.radke@arcor.de> wrote:

Am Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:27:02 +0100 schrieb Andrea Scarpino <andrea@archlinux.org>:

...

I am _really_ sorry for this Andreas. I thought that my help was needed here and a that a rebuild wasn't a problem for you.

Sorry to Eric, Tobias and Thomas too, I hope that I didn't annoyed them updating lilo, libusb, wireless-regdb.

Really was not my intention.

Hey, no problem. I'm happy for every help I can get. But usually I'm not one of the inactive devs ;)

I didn't know there was a problem with nano's deps. So what about the add 'sh' for the install script thingy? Why is it needed? If we want to have a shell installed to make pacman happy for install scripts we could also add "sh" to the pacman pkg deps.

-Andy

My rule of thumb: * For makedepends we can assume to have base and base-devel installed. * For depends we should list all dependencies; especially for packages that are in [core]. * For core packages one also need to make sure that everything called from the install script is included in the deps (e.g. awk, sed etc.) This is important for the installer and building chroots; so pacman knows the correct order to install these packages. To test this just try something like pacman -Sy nano -r <somedir>. And no, this does not even install pacman in the chroot, so we cannot really assume its deps here neither. Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre

On 20/11/10 01:16, Andreas Radke wrote:

Am Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:31:06 +0100 schrieb Andrea Scarpino<andrea@archlinux.org>:

...

Fix dependencies.

signoff both, thanks.

Any reason why you are touching my pkg? I can't remember a bug report or a mail from you.

I've just seen it on Allan's list for the core rebuilds. But shouldn't the rebuilds start _after_ a toolchain bump itself he expected this after a binutils and glibc release?

I started the rebuild before the toolchain bump given that I know the current toolchain is about as good as it gets. Also, I doubt there will be much gain from either of those bumps, especially given I will stick to the bfd linker in binutils for the time being. Allan