[arch-general] depends vs. optdepends

[Eli Schwartz]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev at umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> Well, other distros following certain packaging guidelines doesn't imply that
> Arch should follow them as well. If you subscribe e.g. to fedora-devel you'll
> see how much more complicated compared to Arch the packaging process in Fedora
> is (and this process is faaaar from perfect). And I am not even talking about
> Debian... There is a tradeoff of complexity vs some "breakage".

+1

On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Troy Engel <troyengel+arch at gmail.com> wrote:
> So no, Ralf, it is not "editing of the Arch Wiki IMO is nonsense, just
> spreading FUD" at all -- it's clarifying a situation that is unique
> for Arch (and realistically, Pacman) that packages can have "dangling
> binaries" which may not function unless you manually install the
> optdepends() items. To quote Rashif - "it's a hack"; documented and we
> move on. Let the horse die.


As you have correctly deduced that we are using something called
"pacman", on this "Arch Linux" distro, let me elucidate to you the
prudent course of action:

Different distros will have different policies, and different package
managers, different ways of doing things.

When you see a *major bug* in the foundational design strategy of a
distro, don't automatically assume it IS a bug, it may be by design.

Don't assume arch works like debian or redhat, and don't assume pacman
works like yum or apt.
I won't assume debian works like redhat or arch, and I won't assume
apt works like pacman or yum.
I won't assume redhat works like debian or arch, and I won't assume
yum works like pacman or apt.

If I had to hazard a guess:
Since Arch is a do-it-yourself system, which expects its users to
scrutinize the update process and do configuration themselves, it
seems they assumed that anyone who does NOT know when they install a
program that certain binaries require optdepends to run (even though
they are on the system)... should not be using arch. [2]


Either way, though, it would seem logical to first look into what arch
users say about the matter, maybe ask a question on the mailing list
"I am not overly familiar with arch packaging standards, but is this
behavior normal?", rather than first reporting it as a bug.

And for gosh sakes, when the person who closes the bug as "not a bug"
because *already an optdep* (clue) is one of the Arch Linux Support
Staff[1] that would imply he knows what he is talking about.


[1] https://www.archlinux.org/people/support-staff/
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way#User-centric