On 09/17/2017 03:55 PM, Levente Polyak wrote:
On September 17, 2017 3:44:26 PM GMT+02:00, Lex Black <autumn-wind@web.de> wrote:
Am 17. September 2017 15:07:48 MESZ schrieb Morten Linderud <morten@linderud.pw>:
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 07:48:24AM -0400, Daniel Capella via aur-general wrote:
Input: https://ptpb.pw/7YEJ Output: https://ptpb.pw/-L5i
Missing "python" in the depends array.
Any specific reason? It is indirectly covered through the dependencies.
Because technically it's a very direct first level dependency. It's quite unlikely that a first level python lib dependency will ever not depend on python itself, however it is a quite bad trend to remove any first level dependency just because another one covers it on the second level. For c libs it is also easier to fetch things that need a rebuild rather then grepping for sonames that are linked against it. Either way, all first level dependencies should always be defined, personally I call anything else a bad practice. Of course one could easily fix a missing first level dependency when another lib drops it, however that's not the point, it still remains technically incorrect.
Cheers, Levente
Frankly, I didn't consider this. Thanks for pointing it out, I'm becoming increasingly aware that dependencies must be handled really carefully. I've updated the package to include python as mandatory dependency. Thanks, Tobias