[arch-dev-public] sudo in base-devel group?

[Roman Kyrylych]

2007/11/5, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> On 11/4/07, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 05:55:07PM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 2007 5:20 PM, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > > If I use the mkarchroot and makechrootpkg scripts to build packages, I need
> > > > to have sudo installed.  Using the current mkarchroot options I have to
> > > > specify "base base-devel sudo".  I just need to know if we're planning on
> > > > putting sudo into base-devel or if I should update the mkarchroot and
> > > > makechrootpkg scripts to reflect this.
> > >
> > > I put it into base/support, just like ssh and other tools that aren't
> > > "essential" but also aren't development tools. So no, I think its
> > > going to stay right there.
> >
> > Should we create a base-support group so that mkarchroot can create a
> > chroot with 'mkarchroot chroot base base-devel base-support'?

Another group is redundant iMO.

>
> How's that any different though? Seems like you're actually going to
> get MORE than you need (ssh and the like).
>
> I know it's not pretty, but I couldn't figure out a better way to
> handle sudo. And I don't want to restructure the repos strictly for
> the sake of one tool
>

I don't understand what repos restructuring has to do here.
I guess you're talking about "category (CVS subdir) and package group
should match".
But we're on a way to changing SCM anyway, so I would't care about this now
(neither SVN nor git nor any other proposal had any mention of
category subdirs - they restrict flexibility and give nothing good).

In a thread discussing moving sudo to Core I explained why I wanted to
put it in base-devel group: because IMO base-devel should contain all
packages required to build a typical package with makepkg, thus sudo
should be in base-devel IMO.
Sure, it is not a development tool, but neither is fakeroot.

-- 
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)