[arch-dev-public] Explicit listing of dependencies in the base group
travis at archlinux.org
Mon Jan 28 14:21:55 EST 2008
I think we've been over this before, but I forget what was decided.
Should we, or should we not, be explicitly listing deps such as
ncurses, openssl, readline, and so on? These are all in base, and
namcap seems to think it's not necessary.
I personally disagree with namcap here - I think any link-time
dependencies of a particular app should be explicitly listed, but
Did we decide something here? Am I just clueless that I can't find it
in the archives?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kevin Monceaux <Kevin at rawfeddogs.net>
Date: Jan 28, 2008 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [arch-general] New User(sort of) and a packaging question
To: General Discusson about Arch Linux <arch-general at archlinux.org>
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Travis Willard wrote:
> I think namcap ignores dependencies in the 'base' group, since
> everyone is expected to have base installed, maybe? I'm not 100% sure
> of its internals in this sense.
That sounds like a reasonable possibility. To get an idea of whether
it's more common to explicitly list base dependencies or leave them out I
checked a couple of other packages that depend on ncurses.
extra/editors/vim and aur/unsupported/alpine both depend on ncurses but
don't have ncurses listed as a dependency. extra/network/irssi and
extra/network/mutt, on the other hand, explicitly list ncurses as a
dependency. So, it looks like there's a mixture in both official and aur
> I'd say leave them in - they're clearly needed.
I looked through the Arch Packaging Standards page and didn't really get a
clear impression on which is the preferred method, but I might have missed
something. So, unless I hear otherwise, I'll explicitly list them.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla!!!
More information about the arch-dev-public