[aur-general] Is base an implicit dependency?

[Caleb Maclennan]

> Without base you wouldn't be building the package on a system that can
> be called Arch Linux. What's the point then?
> 
> Regards,
> Marcin Wieczorek

This is actually an interesting question. I assumed this was the answer 
at first too and even composed a message based on that and noting it as 
an exception to the rule against transitive dependencies, but then I 
actually checked the Wiki and my build tooling for backup and ... this 
can't be the whole story. The wiki instructions for building from a 
clean chroot only setup an image with `base-devel` not `base`, and the 
result is a container that has systemd-libs but not actually systemd.

The issue is not just the wiki either, the images used by 
`extra-x86_64-build` and friends are the same way.

Either the docs and all the current tooling is wrong and all sorts of 
official packages are being built in something that "can't be called 
Arch Linux", or there is more to the story.

Caleb