Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#18718 - [bin86] [ed] remove from base-devel group

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Ray (ataraxia) - Wednesday, 17 March 2010, 01:41 GMT
Last edited by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Wednesday, 18 August 2010, 18:47 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Andreas Radke (AndyRTR)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 6
Private No

Details

Unlike the rest of the members of group base-devel, which are commonly used, ed and bin86 are much less often needed as makedeps, and would be better off just being listed in whichever PKGBUILDs actually need them. I'd like to be able to provide a list of such packages, but I can't think of how I'd do so.

Forum thread for this: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=93283
This task depends upon

Closed by  Andreas Radke (AndyRTR)
Wednesday, 18 August 2010, 18:47 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Comment by Jan de Groot (JGC) - Wednesday, 17 March 2010, 08:05 GMT
The only package I know that uses bin86 is lilo. As for ed: it's a dependency for patch in case you want to process ed-style patches. I don't think they're quite common these days as everyone uses diff to generate patches though.
Comment by Thomas Dziedzic (tomd123) - Wednesday, 17 March 2010, 20:14 GMT
I personally don't use ed for anything, but isn't ed usually the only text editor that comes with all linux distros?
Comment by Gavin Bisesi (Daenyth) - Wednesday, 17 March 2010, 20:14 GMT
POSIX says that vi must be installed on all systems. I think that's enough honestly.
Comment by Thomas Dziedzic (tomd123) - Saturday, 20 March 2010, 14:45 GMT
Now that I read Daenyth's comment, I am for this.
Comment by Linas (Linas) - Friday, 26 March 2010, 22:01 GMT
I don't think that patch package should provide an inferior patch, even though ed patches are quite rare.
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Friday, 26 March 2010, 23:36 GMT
> pacman -Si patch
...
Optional Deps : ed: Interpret the patch as an ed script; for patch -e
functionality(deprecated)

So ed is not a real dep. I agree with remove these.
Comment by Robert Ransom (rransom) - Thursday, 29 April 2010, 18:28 GMT
POSIX also requires ed on all systems.

I routinely use ed to tweak configuration files, especially on systems like Arch that use the BSD vi.
Comment by Thomas Dziedzic (tomd123) - Thursday, 29 April 2010, 19:37 GMT
I just took a look myself, and POSIX needs both vi and ed.
Although it doesn't mention bin86 afaict so we could just remove bin86.


[posix link] http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
Comment by Robert Ransom (rransom) - Sunday, 02 May 2010, 18:02 GMT
The bin86 package contains as86, which was once required to build the Linux kernel. bin86 was most likely in the core repository so that core would be self-hosting; now, nothing in core should need bin86.
Comment by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Wednesday, 12 May 2010, 21:29 GMT
lilo makedepends on bin86.
Comment by Robert Ransom (rransom) - Thursday, 13 May 2010, 00:08 GMT
> lilo makedepends on bin86.

Right, and lilo is in core. For some reason I thought lilo was in community.

Then bin86 should stay in core, but be removed from base-devel.
Comment by Thomas Dziedzic (tomd123) - Thursday, 13 May 2010, 00:11 GMT
so, is this the final decision? remove bin86 from base-devel and everything else should stay the same?
Comment by Allan McRae (Allan) - Thursday, 13 May 2010, 00:48 GMT
We do not have ed in "base" so it is not installed by default anyway (in fact nothing is...). So I am happy with removing both of these from base-devel but leaving them in [core].
Comment by Thomas Dziedzic (tomd123) - Monday, 16 August 2010, 22:19 GMT
status?

Loading...