[arch-dev-public] Follow-up on the “Proposal: minimal base system”

Levente Polyak anthraxx at archlinux.org
Mon Mar 18 07:49:16 UTC 2019

On March 18, 2019 8:39:45 AM GMT+01:00, "Bartłomiej Piotrowski via arch-dev-public" <arch-dev-public at archlinux.org> wrote:
>The previous discussion doesn't answer (or even if it does, I don't
>to re-read it at this point) if the idea behind the new metapackage is
>to be implicit dependency of all packages or just optional thing like
>base group always was.
>Currently maintainers either put actual dependencies into depends=(),
>including glibc if something dynamically links to libc.so or assume
>base is group expected to be present on every installation, which I
>wholeheartedly disagree with, because I can just instead use Slackware
>if I weren't caring about dependency system.

I don't quite see why we are pulling together two topics into one, implicit or no implicit dependencies are NOT depending on the metapackage in any mean. It's just a consistent and proper way to handle dependencies of that base. It is free to exist with or without explicit dependencies.
I frankly am on the no imicit dependency front and my packages depend on glibc as well still I want to make that base a properly dependency handles meta package. As we are drifting up here to the transitive dependencies topic let it be separated from the original topic, base is about the foundation for a system but as metapackage to have actually meaningful dependency handling of that set. Implicit dependencies are something else.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list