Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!

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 freswa (frederik) - Saturday, 22 February 2020, 15:57 GMT
Task Type General Gripe
Category Arch Projects
Status Assigned
Assigned To Rémy Oudompheng (remyoudompheng)
Kyle Keen (keenerd)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 0%
Votes 3
Private No


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

Comment by Matthew Sexton (wsdmatty) - Sunday, 13 October 2019, 15:02 GMT
I had a discussion about this in #aur I believe, but my question concerning this is how far up the dependency tree do we go?

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.
Comment by Bruno Pagani (ArchangeGabriel) - Saturday, 22 February 2020, 13:52 GMT
> Does every package need to list every package it depends on

Comment by Chih-Hsuan Yen (yan12125) - Friday, 30 September 2022, 15:29 GMT
I started working on this and pushed a proof-of-concept to Note that this is a quite early work. I need to go through the code to make sure it works as expected.