[arch-general] depends vs. optdepends

[Troy Engel]

So, I found 4 executable/binary files installed (out of thousands -
good job guys) that fail a 'ldd' check (missing shared libraries). The
packages in question mark the missing libraries as 'optdepends' so
they never get installed - I filed 4 bug reports, all 4 got closed as
"not a bug" by the same person. I disagree with this choice as I
believe it's ignoring system integrity needlessly - 4 files are
installed which knowingly do not *function* (cannot launch) at all.
The person who closed it even wrote "So what? Non-functional
executables are not an issue here, this is the point of optional
dependencies."

The wiki states "optdepends: An array of package names that are not
needed for the software to function but provides additional features."
OK, so per the wiki it's pretty clear - missing libs fail the function
test.

The man PKGBUILD states "optdepends (array) An array of packages (and
accompanying reasons) that are not essential for base functionality,
but may be necessary to make full use of the contents of this
package." Per this, there is a huge grey area open to interpretation.

It is my opinion this is a dangerous precedent to install binaries
from an official package that are linked to shared libraries which are
not required to be installed. I'm wondering why Arch considers it
acceptable to just ignore the problem (which could be solved in all 4
cases by simply splitting the package for that binary and adding a
proper depends).

Thoughts?

-te

[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43260
[2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43261
[3[ https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43262
[4] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/43263