[aur-general] [arch-general] Please settle 'base' in 'depends' for all

Seblu seblu at seblu.net
Wed Jan 19 07:57:07 EST 2011

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Am 19.01.2011 13:32, schrieb Seblu:
>>> If package A depends on package B, and B depends on C, then A might
>>> depend on C explicitly because it accesses C directly. Or it might only
>>> depend on indirectly C because B accesses C. We should reflect that in
>>> dependencies (in the first case, A depends on C, in the second case it
>>> doesn't).
>>> The result is this: Whenever the dependencies of B change (e.g., C is
>>> removed), A will still work correctly.
>> And this check is done by a software not by a "scientist" predicate
>> that varies depending on the experience of maintainer.
> For library-dependencies on binaries, yes. On scripts it is much harder
> to check this. I don't think it is possible to cover all cases with a
> piece of software here, but one should try.
I was not clear.

I just wanted to support your example and suggest to Allan that it
will be better that Pacman do this job, even if, cost is important.
IMHO, it's better than pacman take some seconds more to check complex
dependency, rather than maintenairs do it manually, based on their
time based knownledge of depencies. Pacman is also less subject to
human error.

With our modern computer, I do not see why the calculation of the
dependency graph take more than few seconds

Sébastien Luttringer

More information about the aur-general mailing list