On 5/17/25 5:21 AM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

> On Sat, 2025-05-17 at 08:03 +0000, Edward Toroshchyn wrote:

>> Without knowing more about the problem you're solving it's hard to

>> give a more specific advice.

> 

> Good point! I guess dependencies such as bash or systemd might be a

> concern.

> 

>> If you're want a minimalistic OS and/or package manager, have you

>> looked at Alpine?

> 

> Or if the OP wants makepkg, but the OP's Linux is based on e.g. busybox,

> it might be worth to accept a dependency against bash.

> 

> Even for my Alpine I installed bash, quasi as my file manager ;).

> 

> • rocketmouse@archlinux ~

> $ /bin/ls -lh /mnt/m1.alpine/bin/bash

> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 743K May 25  2023 /mnt/m1.alpine/bin/bash

> 

> 743 KiB

None of that is true in my case, from the pacman PKGBUILD

depends=(

   bash

   coreutils

   curl

   gawk

   gettext

   glibc

   gnupg <-- drop this

   gpgme <-- drop this

   grep

   libarchive

   pacman-mirrorlist <-- drop this

   systemd

)

makedepends=(

   asciidoc <-- drop this

   doxygen <-- drop this

   git

   meson

)

optdepends=(

   'base-devel: required to use makepkg' <-- may be an issue

   'perl-locale-gettext: translation support in makepkg-template'

)

All the other dependencies are OK but they will be built with less 

dependencies if that make sense.  They have a bit less capabilities as 

they will not be built from there respective PKGBUILDs.

-- 

Hindi madali ang maging ako