[aur-general] add base-devel / multilib-devel group as makedepend to AUR packages ?

[Jelle van der Waa]

On 09/16/17 at 08:19pm, brent s. wrote:
> On 09/16/2017 07:52 PM, David Phillips wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 02:19:09PM +0200, LoneVVolf wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I do have the impression that the number of aur comments about pacakges not
> >> building unless foo is installed has gone up.
> >> Very often foo turns out to be part of base-devel or multilib-devel.
> >>
> >> Answering that is easy, by linking to main AUR wiki page that clearly states
> >> base-devel is assumed to be installed when building aur packages.
> >> That part appears to be overlooked often though and results in unnecessary
> >> clutter in aur comments.
> >>
> >> Perhaps we could put base-devel group in makedepends of aur pacakages ?
> >> Lib32-* / multilib packages could list both multilib-devel and base-devel.
> >>
> >> Lone_Wolf
> > 
> > I can see where you're coming from.
> > 
> > I have to be stubborn. Arch assumes some sort of sensible working brain
> > of its users. Users building software that haven't installed things for
> > building software… it makes me concerned for the community.
> > 
> > David
> > 
> 
> 
> At the risk of coming off as a little BOFH-y, I've been in this
> situation before (where some users CBA to read[0]) and it makes me want
> to write something that will:
> 
> 1.) check the comments sections for new comments on my packages,
> 2.) parse those comments for pasted error messages that would be caused
> by not-installed (base|multilib)-devel
> 3.) follow to the comment author's AUR profile, and grab contact info
> from their email address/PGP key FPR/IRC nick/whichever it finds, and
> 4.) emails/PMs them a link to [0].
> 
> Now, I don't see a Terms of Service for the AUR, but if there's demand
> for this from other AUR package maintainers and nobody sees any obvious
> ethical flaws with this, I'd be glad to make this my next project and
> share with other maintainers.
> 
> We can automate everything else, why shouldn't we automate RTFMs?

I sincerely don't believe that this will have the right affect, it will
be treated as spam.

Maybe we should start advocating to use extra-$arch-build for building
AUR packages, since that contains base-devel :-). This is probably also
what Debian does I guess or does every package implictly depend on
'build-essential'.

-- 
Jelle van der Waa
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20170917/70799276/attachment.asc>