On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Seblu <se...@seblu.net> wrote: > I just wanted to support your example and suggest to Allan that it > will be better that Pacman do this job, even if, cost is important. > IMHO, it's better than pacman take some seconds more to check complex > dependency, rather than maintenairs do it manually, based on their > time based knownledge of depencies. Pacman is also less subject to > human error.
I think you misunderstood the problem. Pacman already does that (calculate the graph of dependencies) when installing packages. The problem discussed here is the way of informing pacman about that dependencies. The original question was if it is necessary to specify packages of the base group in the depends array of a PKGBUILD. And that is a harder problem to solve, because the packages must know very well the program being packaged, so he decides what is a direct dependency and what is not. There are tools to help with binaries and libraries, but not for non-linkable dependencies (scripts or tools for processing, for example). -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------
