[aur-general] Is base an implicit dependency?

[Filipe Laíns]

On Tue, 2021-07-27 at 11:15 +0200, Cedric Girard via aur-general wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I would like to have a confirmation. I encountered a PKGBUILD on AUR 
> that is not building correctly except when systemd is present when 
> building. The maintainer considers the makedeps is implicit as systemd 
> is dragged by base metapackage.
> 
> However devtools only ensures base-devel is present, not base, when 
> building in a clean chroot. And I could not find a mention in the wiki 
> of base expected to be present when writing a PKGBUILD.
> 
> Could you confirm to me what are the guidelines? Does systemd 
> (make)dependency should be explicit or not?
> 
> Regards,
> 

Hi Cedric,

Yes, see [1]. Packages in base can, and should, be omitted from dependencies.

Similarly, the base-devel group is assumed to be installed when building
packages, see [2]. Its members should be omitted from makedepends and
checkdepends.

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Meta_package_and_package_group#Meta_packages
[2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/PKGBUILD#makedepends

Cheers,
Filipe Laíns
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20210727/7385374b/attachment.sig>