FS#64022 - {namcap} Should not report “already included” dependencies but missing ones
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Bruno Pagani (ArchangeGabriel) - Saturday, 05 October 2019, 09:42 GMT
Last edited by Toolybird (Toolybird) - Monday, 27 February 2023, 20:05 GMT
Opened by Bruno Pagani (ArchangeGabriel) - Saturday, 05 October 2019, 09:42 GMT
Last edited by Toolybird (Toolybird) - Monday, 27 February 2023, 20:05 GMT
|
Details
As discussed at Arch Conf, packages should not rely on some
of their dependencies to provides their other ones.
One of the issue to fix in this direction is namcap currently telling to remove “already included” dependencies instead of complaining about the direct dependencies missing (but provided by another dependency, which allowed to build/run fine at packaging time). Opening this issue so we can track this. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Toolybird (Toolybird)
Monday, 27 February 2023, 20:05 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: @yan12125 says "Fixed in namcap git-master"
Monday, 27 February 2023, 20:05 GMT
Reason for closing: Fixed
Additional comments about closing: @yan12125 says "Fixed in namcap git-master"
For example.. One of the packages I maintain is made from a .deb, and the tool originally used to build the PKGBUILD included a lot of deps. 90% of which were "Included but already satisfied" by the gtk3 dep.
Where do we make the distinction between included and implicitly included depends? Does every package need to list every package it depends on, or is it reasonable to assume that certain libraries and dependencies will be pulled by more 'base' depends?
I can see the benefit behind both options, so i'd like to know what bigger brains than mine think.
Yes.