[arch-dev-public] [signoff] nano-2.2.5-2

[Allan McRae]

On 20/11/10 03:54, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:38:58 +0100, Andreas Radke<a.radke at arcor.de>
> wrote:
>> Am Fri, 19 Nov 2010 16:27:02 +0100
>> schrieb Andrea Scarpino<andrea at archlinux.org>:
>>
>>
>>> I am _really_ sorry for this Andreas.
>>> I thought that my help was needed here and a that a rebuild wasn't a
>>> problem for you.
>>>
>>> Sorry to Eric, Tobias and Thomas too, I hope that I didn't annoyed
>>> them updating lilo, libusb, wireless-regdb.
>>>
>>> Really was not my intention.
>>>
>>
>> Hey, no problem. I'm happy for every help I can get. But usually I'm not
>> one of the inactive devs ;)
>>
>> I didn't know there was a problem with nano's deps. So what about the
>> add 'sh' for the install script thingy? Why is it needed? If we want to
>> have a shell installed to make pacman happy for install scripts we could
>> also add "sh" to the pacman pkg deps.
>>
>> -Andy
>
> My rule of thumb:
>
> * For makedepends we can assume to have base and base-devel installed.
> * For depends we should list all dependencies; especially for packages
> that are in [core].
> * For core packages one also need to make sure that everything called
> from the install script is included in the deps (e.g. awk, sed etc.)
>
> This is important for the installer and building chroots; so pacman
> knows the correct order to install these packages. To test this just try
> something like pacman -Sy nano -r<somedir>. And no, this does not even
> install pacman in the chroot, so we cannot really assume its deps here
> neither.

That is exactly what I did to get the list of extra "deps" needed to 
install all [core] packages.  It prevents possible "failure running 
install script" (or something like that) lines when installing which 
used to be quite common if you did not install the whole of base (and 
who really wants to do that...).

Allan