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

[Allan McRae]

On 22/01/11 01:57, Xyne wrote:
> So if I wrote bindings to libalpm in Haskell (haskell-libalpm) and then created
> a package with a binary that used those bindings (foo), then readelf's output
> would not indicate libalpm?

Short answer is probably not...  especially if you use -Wl,--as-needed. 
   Looking at the "readelf -d" output for pacman and libalpm.so might be 
informative to understanding this.


<snip>

> Forget that for a moment though and answer this instead: Can you think of any
> way other than direct specification that would guarantee that all dependencies
> are installed with a package (presuming that we know exactly what a package
> depends on). E.g. if a package depends on foo and foo-bar, then foo-bar clearly
> suffices, but how would you formally guarantee something such as glibc?

If an Arch system can natively install packages with pacman, I then can 
make the guarantee that glibc on that system.

Allan