[aur-general] Is base an implicit dependency?

[Jason Ryan]

On 27/07/21 at 01:17pm, Archange via aur-general wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Le 27/07/2021 à 11:26, Cedric Girard via aur-general a écrit :
>>Hi,
>>
>>On 2021-07-27 11:20, Marcin Wieczorek wrote:
>>>>The most important meta package is base. It contains a minimal package
>>>>set that defines a basic Arch Linux installation. It includes:
>>>Without base you wouldn't be building the package on a system that can
>>>be called Arch Linux. What's the point then?
>>
>>I am misusing devtools feature to build in a clean chroot, then? Or 
>>is there a bug in those tools?
>
>No, you’re not, and systemd must be added to makedepends if required 
>at build time. The maintainer is wrong.
>
I'm the maintainer[0], and I'm not wrong. The package builds fine in a
chroot, using the classic way[1] with makechrootpkg.

>systemd is not part of base-devel, and base is not part of official 
>building chroots (they were reasons for this, but I don’t remember 
>them at the moment).
>
It would good to see this actually documented somewhere.

>Also, I would still keep base content in dependencies (when required) 
>in any case, because we could drop packages from base at any point 
>(they are open tickets for some of them already).

If you are going to drop systemd, I suspect there would be sufficient
lead time for people to make the necessary changes to their PKGBUILDS.

0. https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mpdscribble/
1. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/DeveloperWiki:Building_in_a_clean_chroot#Classic_way

-- 

// jwr

-------------- 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/20210728/35abf54b/attachment-0001.sig>