[aur-general] Go package dependencies

[Adam Levy]

Having heard both sides of the coin here I think I lean toward agreeing
with Eli in this case. And as it appears to be partly a matter of personal
taste anyway, I'll be leaving the dependencies as is.

Thank you both for your replies.

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Eli Schwartz via aur-general <
aur-general at archlinux.org> wrote:

> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Levente Polyak via aur-general <
> > aur-general at archlinux.org> wrote:
> >> Actually there is no strict rule that base must be installed, its just a
> >> strong recommendation. While most systems would be quite useless without
> >> having glibc, its still a first level dependencies that a package uses
> >> and therefor should be declared explicitly and not implicitly.
> >> Opinions vary, but if you ask me its cleaner to explicitly state first
> >> level dependencies, no matter from where they may be implicitly
> >> available (so yes, personally i add both, glibc and bash if required).
>
> On 02/27/2018 08:48 PM, Adam Levy via aur-general wrote:
> > Good to know. I will update my PKGBUILDs accordingly.
> >
> > Thank you
> >
>
> Whereas I in contrast believe that glibc and bash even as first level
> dependencies make no sense to add, due to the fact that *all*, not
> *most* systems would be useless without it, since glibc is used for
> literally everything and if you rebuild the entire distro to use musl
> libc or something then you are no longer using something even vaguely
> resembling Arch Linux. (And if you want to do so anyway then your
> toolchain probably pulls in musl automatically, and adding a dependency
> on glibc just because the default compiler for makepkg uses glibc would
> be wrong from the perspective of the PKGBUILD.)
>
> So as Levente said, there are no real rules anywhere here. I like to
> think that the reason namcap warns about glibc is only because it would
> need to be explicitly excluded, and no one can agree on what to do here.
>
> So, disregard namcap entirely, as it is often wrong about *lots* of
> things, and ask yourself if you really think it makes sense to list
> glibc here.
>
> ...
>
> FWIW I understand where Levente is coming from in the general sense with
> regard to first-level dependencies that are implicitly available due to
> another dependency -- those can often cause issues when the other
> dependency unexpectedly drops its own dependency.
>
> I just think glibc, bash, coreutils, util-linux, and other similar
> packages should be a special exception. ;)
>
> Maybe one day we will actually decide on a "base-sytem" metapackage that
> guarantees that all Arch systems have these available. Until then, this
> is really a bikeshed discussion.
>
> --
> Eli Schwartz
> Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
>
>