Hi, On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 07:20:42PM -0600, Troy Engel wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com> wrote:
Arch currently uses optional dependencies even when it means that executables provided by the package aren't going to work with the minimal set of dependencies. The packages could be split up more to avoid this without pulling in more stuff, but it's not what packagers usually choose to it. It's a design choice left up to the packager, not a bug.
Thank you - tribal knowledge that wasn't written down as an acceptable standard to the Arch packaging. I have added your first sentence to a note (and credited you in the comment) so that it's not tribal anymore:
Just because something is written in a wiki doesn't make it rational....
The reason this is complicated is anyone who comes into Arch from (most) other distros where this is considered a bug needs to understand Arch doesn't work by the same rules as all the others for binary shared library resolution. I disagree with the SOP, but can leave my opinion at the door.
Well, other distros following certain packaging guidelines doesn't imply that Arch should follow them as well. If you subscribe e.g. to fedora-devel you'll see how much more complicated compared to Arch the packaging process in Fedora is (and this process is faaaar from perfect). And I am not even talking about Debian... There is a tradeoff of complexity vs some "breakage". So it's not about you agreeing or not with the status quo, it's about contributing a more rational alternative than the existing PKGBUILD. In your jasper bugreport, it would have helped if you provided a PKGBUILD with split-packages, like jasper-base and jasper-jiv with proper "conflicts" and "provides". At least that's what I would do... Cheers, -- Leonid Isaev GPG fingerprints: DA92 034D B4A8 EC51 7EA6 20DF 9291 EE8A 043C B8C4 C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D