[arch-dev-public] filesystem package

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Tue Jan 29 08:31:48 EST 2013

On 29/01/13 23:18, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> On 29/01/13 22:24, Xyne wrote:
>>>> Yup. For post_upgrade we can depend on 'base' being installed.
>>> Why are you assuming anything? If those packages are needed, why not make them
>>> explicit dependencies?
>>> I don't see how that turned into depending on all of "base" to be installed
>>> either.
>> Because then you can not have glibc depend on filesystem and everything
>> breaks during install - as was explained earlier in the thread.
>> And assuming bash and coreutils for post_upgrade is quite reasonable,
>> given your system is in a state to run pacman...
> I thougth the point was about base dependency. Using pacman deps
> inside pacman scripts is obvious. Except if there is strong pacman
> version requirement to get a depends. But we are not here.

Do a pactree on pacman and note that both the packages removed from the
filesystem dependencies are in its dependency tree...

I consider the "base" group only as an installation helper and agree we
should always specify dependencies that are needed.  But central
packages to the system require some adjustments to ensure their
installation order due to dependency cycles.  There are very few
packages like that - filesystem being one, particularly now the symlinks
are needed for the ELF interpreter.  And the only assumption being made
is that coreutils and bash are installed for post_upgrade.  If you do a
-Qi on those packages on your system, you will see it is not possible
for that to happen and your system being in a state to run a pacman update.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list