On 2021-07-27 21:26, Jason Ryan via aur-general wrote:
On 27/07/21 at 01:17pm, Archange via aur-general wrote:
No, you’re not, and systemd must be added to makedepends if required at build time. The maintainer is wrong.
I'm the maintainer[0], and I'm not wrong. The package builds fine in a chroot, using the classic way[1] with makechrootpkg.
<begin irony alert, sung to the obnoxious ska tune by the W's "the devil is bad"> Hi, you are the maintainer and you are wrong! <end irony alert> I don't know if humor will help here. That's certainly not my taste in music, it's just one of those things one can't forget. But in all seriousness it would be nice to bring the tone down a little across the board. Your response here and in AUR comments does come off a bit abrasive for something that (at the very least) is clearly a point of confusion. I just checked your package myself and it does *not* build in a clean chroot the classic way with makechrootpkg ... assuming the chroot is setup the way the Wiki currently suggests using `base-devel`. If you have setup your chroot(s) with `base` in the mix that is something you did and not what is currently standardized across both the preconfigured devtools roots and the Wiki manual instructions. This whole thread is discussing whether that is correct and whether `base` *should* be included in `base-devel`, but at the moment it is pretty evidently not. Personally I think this does need to change and `base` should be assumed — but that only make sense after more things are stripped out of `base` that only apply to physical systems and not containers.
systemd is not part of base-devel, and base is not part of official building chroots It would good to see this actually documented somewhere.
Thy _why_ could use some documentation, but it's pretty self evident that this is not currently the case. You can check for yourself by spawning one of the devtools roots or my running makearchroot with the arguments suggested on the wiki (which does not mention `base`). Regards, Caleb