FS#12959 - [patch] make ed an optdepend

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Allan McRae (Allan) - Sunday, 25 January 2009, 10:55 GMT
Last edited by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Friday, 06 February 2009, 18:27 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Andreas Radke (AndyRTR)
Architecture All
Severity Very Low
Priority Low
Reported Version None
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:
ed is only required for minor functionality in patch so it would be nice to make it an optdepend.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Andreas Radke (AndyRTR)
Friday, 06 February 2009, 18:27 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  2.5.9-2 in testing
Comment by kongokris 2 (nut543) - Sunday, 25 January 2009, 15:20 GMT
what are you talking about? if it is required it is required..

define "minor"..
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Sunday, 25 January 2009, 15:37 GMT
Minor as in it is only needed for the essentially obsolete "-e" flag:
-e --ed Interpret the patch as an ed script.

Funnily enough, it was the release of patch itself that made this style of patch file obsolete.

If ed it not installed, patch gives quite an obvious error message when attempting to use this flag (sh: /bin/ed: No such file or directory).
Comment by kongokris 2 (nut543) - Sunday, 25 January 2009, 15:56 GMT
hmm.. ok someone that knows more than me will have to +1 :P but if your right and it is "essentially obsolete" it sounds like this will be no problem then..
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Sunday, 25 January 2009, 17:11 GMT
Could making ed an optdepend mean that it could be moved out of base?
Is there a policy for packages in base and their optdepends?
FS$12964 incl. Allan's comment is also relevant to what i ask.
If bridge-utils, dhcpcd and wireless_tools are indeed optdepends of initscripts and they are all in core, not base, maybe ed could move there too.
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Monday, 26 January 2009, 18:54 GMT
Makes sense to me that if we switch this, we can move ed out of base (at the least)
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Tuesday, 27 January 2009, 20:41 GMT
For the sake of correctness ed is part of base-devel not base.

Loading...