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

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Wed Jan 19 08:07:00 EST 2011

On 19/01/11 22:49, Magnus Therning wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:50, Allan McRae<allan at archlinux.org>  wrote:
>> On 19/01/11 22:20, Thomas Bächler wrote:
>>> Am 19.01.2011 08:08, schrieb Allan McRae:
>>>> If we want to be really pedantic about dependencies, we should list
>>>> _ALL_ dependencies and not remove the ones that are dependencies of
>>>> dependencies.
>>> Why don't we just do the correct thing:
>>> 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.
>> I agree that would be the correct thing to do.  In fact, I looked at doing
>> this to the extent of including ever package that a program linked to in its
>> dependencies.  This increases the number of dependencies needed for the
>> average package in the repos greatly (from memory it averaged a several fold
>> increase).
> I don't quite understand what you mean, did you add the transitive
> closure of all dependencies to the package, or did you only add all
> direct dependencies?

Essentially "readelf -d" on the files and add all needed packages to the 
dependencies.  I.e. list all packages that are directly linked.

Its has been many years since I did graph theory... but isn't a 
"transitive closure" essentially what we have been doing with only 
listing the top level of dependencies and having them cover the rest?


More information about the aur-general mailing list