[arch-dev-public] status of csup
dpmcgee at gmail.com
Wed Oct 24 09:16:27 EDT 2007
On 10/24/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2007/10/23, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> > On 10/23/07, Paul Mattal <paul at mattal.com> wrote:
> > > Dan McGee wrote:
> > > > On 10/23/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Right now sudo is in Extra.
> > > >> I request to move it to Core/base-devel because it is needed by
> > > >> makepkg to be used by user (which is the right way).
> > > >
> > > > Seems reasonable to me, +1 as long as it doesn't pull in other deps
> > > > and has maintainer(s).
> > >
> > > I will continue to maintain sudo in whatever location y'all deem
> > > fit. At the moment, it sounds like [core] but maybe not base-devel.
> > >
> > > It only depends on pam and glibc.
> > I vote it moves to core. Whether in base or base-devel is not a huge
> > deal to me, though it fits better in base.
> Hm, csup is like another candidate for base-devel - required by abs.
> abs can also work with cvsup but we're going to dump it anyway because
> it's non-portable.
> It's only 49,6K, dependencies are gcc, zlib and openssl (all in Core).
> gcc dependency should be changed to gcc-libs, of course.
> What do you think?
Feel free to commit the change to CVS to change that dependency from
gcc to gcc-libs, even if you don't do a rebuild.
Second, if we do move it, we should dump cvsup, not flounder around
with what we are doing now. But the reasons against moving it (and I
hate to say it) is that we may not continue to use CVS so its use will
no longer be necessary.
More information about the arch-dev-public