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

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Sun Mar 26 00:27:52 UTC 2017

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 11:26:35 -0700, Yardena Cohen via aur-general wrote:
>We only have a circular process: packages shouldn't be
>removed because that might break some PKGBUILDs, and PKGBUILDs
>continue to omit dependencies because they're implied.

Perhaps a good point. I guess this is something the Arch developers have
to decide, so it might be irrelevant what users think. I assume the
developers will discuss this, if they feel the need to do it. This
discussion is about AUR PKGBUILDs. Isn't it? So for the moment...

>If you're a daemon with systemd units, depend on systemd.


Warning: Arch Linux only has official support for systemd."

- https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/init

...it wouldn't make a difference if systemd is mentioned or not.

In the end you could call all discussions about...

"Before continuing, install the base-devel group. Packages belonging to
this group are not required to be listed as build-time dependencies
(makedepends) in PKGBUILD files. In addition, the base group is assumed
to be installed on all Arch systems." -

... bikeshedding, since this is a given precondition ;). This isn't the
developers list, it's the Arch _User_ Repository list.



FWIW actually I was mistaken, when I mentioned
virtualbox ;), "linux-headers" are just a make dependency and there
already is a solution to avoid issues:

"VIRTUALBOX-HOST-MODULES (virtualbox-host-dkms,

More information about the aur-general mailing list