[aur-general] Should "base" packages be listed as dependencies?

[Eli Schwartz]

On 03/22/2017 11:24 PM, Xyne wrote:
> The PKGBUILD should specify all necessary information for full dependency
> resolution without assuming anything other than base-devel*. Extending the
> assumption to the full base group just so some packagers can avoid typing a
> few extra words *once* when they create the PKGBUILD is just laziness. It's not
> even a real burden given that most deps are pulled in indirectly by other
> deps so at most you usually only need to list a few. If a PKGBUILD does not
> contain all information for full dependency resolution (minus base-devel), then
> it is technically incorrect (it lacks required metadata).

Well, it also means, for example, that you don't have to keep listing
things like bash and glibc in literally hundreds of PKGBUILDs.

> There is no "base installation" of Arch Linux. That's one of the defining
> features of this distro. Forcing some people to install bloat and cruft (or
> play dependency spelunker) to save a few keystrokes in a PKGBUILD is just
> wrong.

There absolutely is a base installation. Unless you are suggesting e.g.
systemd-less systems constitute a supported Arch Linux installation?

> It also fails to consider use cases such as minimalist chroots for
> building packages.

I thought that was the point of suggesting that minimalist build chroots
potentially require base as well...

But hey, I am also perfectly happy listing them only as makedepends. :)

-- 
Eli Schwartz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20170322/416a57f9/attachment.asc>