On March 18, 2019 8:39:45 AM GMT+01:00, "Bartłomiej Piotrowski via arch-dev-public" <[email protected]> wrote: >The previous discussion doesn't answer (or even if it does, I don't >care >to re-read it at this point) if the idea behind the new metapackage is >to be implicit dependency of all packages or just optional thing like >base group always was. > >Currently maintainers either put actual dependencies into depends=(), >including glibc if something dynamically links to libc.so or assume >that >base is group expected to be present on every installation, which I >wholeheartedly disagree with, because I can just instead use Slackware >if I weren't caring about dependency system. >
I don't quite see why we are pulling together two topics into one, implicit or no implicit dependencies are NOT depending on the metapackage in any mean. It's just a consistent and proper way to handle dependencies of that base. It is free to exist with or without explicit dependencies. I frankly am on the no imicit dependency front and my packages depend on glibc as well still I want to make that base a properly dependency handles meta package. As we are drifting up here to the transitive dependencies topic let it be separated from the original topic, base is about the foundation for a system but as metapackage to have actually meaningful dependency handling of that set. Implicit dependencies are something else. Cheers Levente
