[aur-general] Is base an implicit dependency?

[Archange]

Le 27/07/2021 à 16:46, Archange a écrit :
> Le 27/07/2021 à 16:11, Filipe Laíns via aur-general a écrit :
>> 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.
>
> This is not generally true. While base can arguably be implicitly 
> depended on for most basic tools (e.g. standard POSIX things), library 
> dependencies should still be listed for instance:
>
> https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_package_guidelines#Package_dependencies 
>
>
> And we are subject to remove some packages, see 
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/64028, 
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/64029, 
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/64030, 
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/64047.
>
> Also, makedepencies != dependencies, so:
>
>> Similarly, the base-devel group is assumed to be installed when building
>> packages, see [2]. Its members should be omitted from makedepends and
>> checkdepends.
>
> yes, but once again base is not in building chroots, thus anything 
> from base and not in base-devel required for building must be listed 
> in makedepends, in this case systemd. I still have yet to find again 
> where we discussed base in chroots/systemd in base-devel, but this is 
> the current states of things so as long as it stays this way, systemd 
> should be listed in makedepends if required.

Not the one I had in mind, but I was pointed at 
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/66762

So a solution would indeed be to add base to base-devel and be done with 
it (w.r.t. the specific question of whether systemd should be a makedep).

Bruno/Archange