So, I didn't think such a technical question would spark so much passion!
Maybe this discussion should indeed go to arch-dev-public.
In the meantime, I see 4 positions emerge from the discussion:
1) packages in "base" *should* be explicitely listed as dependencies
(either for mere "technical c
Le 29 mars 2017 00:32:09 GMT-07:00, Baptiste Jonglez
a écrit :
>So, I didn't think such a technical question would spark so much
>passion!
>Maybe this discussion should indeed go to arch-dev-public.
Probably, since this is not just discussing the AUR policy but packaging at the
whole scale.
On 29-03-17 09:32, Baptiste Jonglez wrote:
So, I didn't think such a technical question would spark so much passion!
Maybe this discussion should indeed go to arch-dev-public.
In the meantime, I see 4 positions emerge from the discussion:
1) packages in "base" *should* be explicitely listed as
Em março 29, 2017 4:32 Baptiste Jonglez escreveu:
So, I didn't think such a technical question would spark so much passion!
Maybe this discussion should indeed go to arch-dev-public.
In the meantime, I see 4 positions emerge from the discussion:
1) packages in "base" *should* be explicitely lis
On 2017-03-25 16:31 +0100
Tinu Weber wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 09:19:43 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 06:47:07 +, Xyne wrote:
>> >A bash script should depend only on bash.
>>
>> Hi Xyne,
>>
>> Seems to be better it would depend on coreutilsor do you asume a bash
Hi Konstantin,
sorry for not being clear enough for you to understand what I wanted to say.
I haven't looked at your PKGBUILD but just tried to give you some hints
from where you may be able to find the cause of your trouble.
Maybe I should try again ;-)
PKGBUILD is just a bash script that is s
