[aur-general] should make be in makedepends?
Should we expect that the user already has make installed when a makepkg is invoked? Or should we put 'make' in makedepends? -- Abhishek
Abhishek Dasgupta wrote:
Should we expect that the user already has make installed when a makepkg is invoked? Or should we put 'make' in makedepends?
-- Abhishek
We generally assume the user has everything in base and base-devel installed and so don't list those packages. Allan
Hi, Allan McRae wrote:
We generally assume the user has everything in base and base-devel installed and so don't list those packages.
Aren't there exceptions? Doesn't it make sense to include things which a configure script might determine as optional, e.g. gettext? I think studying the output of configure and making a reasoned decision on what to put in makedepends is often better that just assuming the presence of something. Regards, Neil Darlow
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Neil Darlow <neil@darlow.co.uk> wrote:
Hi,
Aren't there exceptions? Doesn't it make sense to include things which a configure script might determine as optional, e.g. gettext?
I think studying the output of configure and making a reasoned decision on what to put in makedepends is often better that just assuming the presence of something.
Yes, but in general you would just assume everything in base is installed. That doesn't mean you throw out all reason as well. -- Callan Barrett
participants (4)
-
Abhishek Dasgupta
-
Allan McRae
-
Callan Barrett
-
Neil Darlow