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

[LoneVVolf]

On 29-03-17 09:32, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
> So, I didn't think such a technical question would spark so much passion!
> Maybe this discussion should indeed go to arch-dev-public.
>
> In the meantime, I see 4 positions emerge from the discussion:
>
> 1) packages in "base" *should* be explicitely listed as dependencies
>    (either for mere "technical correctness", or because of bloat, i.e. not
>    everyone wants/needs all packages from "base")
>
> 2) packages in "base" *should not* be listed as dependencies (because it
>    is assumed that all Arch Linux systems have all packages from "base"
>    already installed)
>
> 3) it depends on the maintainer (i.e. there are no guidelines on this question)
>
> 4) it depends on the base package in question (e.g. it would be acceptable
>    to depend on glibc, but not on systemd)
>
>
> I get the impression that 3) is the current status quo.  I find 4) to be
> quite strange and subjective, but it could be done (e.g. only allow
> library dependency such as glibc, or allow all dependencies except a few
> like systemd).
>
> I have two more arguments in favour of 1) or 4), related to technical
> correctness:
>
> - when a new version of glibc is released, which packages should be
>   rebuilt?  Without complete dependency information, I don't see how it's
>   possible to know.
>
> - Assume that all "base" packages are supposed to already be installed,
>   and thus no other package depends on "base" packages.  When a new
>   package X is added to "base", how is an already-running system supposed
>   to pick it up if no dependency pulls it in?
>
> Baptiste
>

It looks like many here haven't looked at base group in a while,
or don't distinguish between base group and core repository.

example :
systemd-sysvcompat is in base, systemd is NOT .
Both are in core repo .

LW