[pacman-dev] Explicit (opt)deps for makepkg.
Hi, I think the pacman package should explicitly list makepkg's optional dependencies, instead of simply assuming the presence of base and base-devel. Using a minimal 32-bit chroot, the only way to keep it minimal is to try to run makepkg and then track down each dependency-related error one by one until it completes. There is no reason to install a huge group when only a few of those packages are actually required (e.g. "file" from "base") and doing so simply leads to unnecessary downloads and chroot pollution. The shotgun approach to package installation for makepkg has always struck me as unminimalistic. I understand that the omission of explicit dependencies is seen as "simple" by some, but that's probably how the huge DE devs view their dep chains too. Maybe "base-devel" could encompass all hard dependencies of makepkg and nothing more, and then be listed as an optdep for makepkg. Packages that require anything beyond that should list the additional (build) deps explicitly. Thoughts? Regards, Xyne
On 19/07/10 06:24, Xyne wrote:
Hi,
I think the pacman package should explicitly list makepkg's optional dependencies, instead of simply assuming the presence of base and base-devel.
You have reached the list for the development of pacman. For discussion of distribution specific issues on packaging, you should use the facilities provided by your distribution (e.g. mailing lists/forums/bug tracker).
Using a minimal 32-bit chroot, the only way to keep it minimal is to try to run makepkg and then track down each dependency-related error one by one until it completes.
The dependencies for makepkg are given at the top of makepkg itself. If any are missing, provide a patch or file a bug report. Allan
Allan McRae wrote:
On 19/07/10 06:24, Xyne wrote:
Hi,
I think the pacman package should explicitly list makepkg's optional dependencies, instead of simply assuming the presence of base and base-devel.
You have reached the list for the development of pacman. For discussion of distribution specific issues on packaging, you should use the facilities provided by your distribution (e.g. mailing lists/forums/bug tracker).
Suddenly I feel as if I'm in a Monty Python sketch, but I'll play along. See you at the next teller window.
Using a minimal 32-bit chroot, the only way to keep it minimal is to try to run makepkg and then track down each dependency-related error one by one until it completes.
The dependencies for makepkg are given at the top of makepkg itself. If any are missing, provide a patch or file a bug report.
# makepkg uses quite a few external programs during its execution. You # need to have at least the following installed for makepkg to function: # bsdtar (libarchive), bzip2, coreutils, fakeroot, find (findutils), # gettext, grep, gzip, openssl, sed, tput (ncurses), xz ==> Extracting Sources... /usr/bin/makepkg: line 663: file: command not found ==> Entering fakeroot environment... /usr/bin/makepkg: line 1749: file: command not found Please add "file" to that list and please don't tell me to submit a patch or file a bug report for something that trivial. There's enough pointless bureaucracy in the world as is.
Please add "file" to that list and please don't tell me to submit a patch or file a bug report for something that trivial. There's enough pointless bureaucracy in the world as is.
This is how open source development is done. If you want something fixed then either submit a bug report or fix problem yourself with a patch. If you don't like it... too bad for you.
"Tobias Eriksson" <tobier@tobier.se> wrote:
Please add "file" to that list and please don't tell me to submit a patch or file a bug report for something that trivial. There's enough pointless bureaucracy in the world as is.
This is how open source development is done. If you want something fixed then either submit a bug report or fix problem yourself with a patch. If you don't like it... too bad for you.
Whoever needs to see this has or will see it. There is no reason to jump through extra hoops. It's like someone telling you that you left your headlights on, and you respond with "send me an email about it". In this case, asking for a patch that adds a single word to a comment is silly, and I would still have to submit the patch to someone for it to be applied, which would actually require more work than simply changing that line in the first place. Chanting the "submit a patch" mantra without regard for context seems to be a consequence of long-term development and concomitant apathy. If you don't want to fix it, then don't.
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:12:23 +0200, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
"Tobias Eriksson" <tobier@tobier.se> wrote:
Please add "file" to that list and please don't tell me to submit a patch or file a bug report for something that trivial. There's enough pointless bureaucracy in the world as is.
This is how open source development is done. If you want something fixed then either submit a bug report or fix problem yourself with a patch. If you don't like it... too bad for you.
Whoever needs to see this has or will see it. There is no reason to jump through extra hoops. It's like someone telling you that you left your headlights on, and you respond with "send me an email about it".
In this case, asking for a patch that adds a single word to a comment is silly, and I would still have to submit the patch to someone for it to be applied, which would actually require more work than simply changing that line in the first place. Chanting the "submit a patch" mantra without regard for context seems to be a consequence of long-term development and concomitant apathy.
If you don't want to fix it, then don't.
Sure that in this case you don't need a patch, but where is the problem to file a simple bug report. Just two lines of text and everything is allright. Just my two cents Adam Hani Schakaki
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:15 PM, <krzd@krzd.net> wrote:
Sure that in this case you don't need a patch, but where is the problem to file a simple bug report. Just two lines of text and everything is allright. Just my two cents
Please... the developers can talk for themselves... and these people actually know that Xyne filed a bug there after his mail : http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20217 But that's not even the problem. However if you have something productive to contribute to the original deps problem, go ahead.
participants (5)
-
Allan McRae
-
krzd＠krzd.net
-
Tobias Eriksson
-
Xavier Chantry
-
Xyne