Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in Unsupported. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!

FS#64165 - [bison] <=3.4.2-1 missing dependency on gettext

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Alexander Schnaidt (Namarrgon) - Friday, 18 October 2019, 08:01 GMT
Last edited by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Friday, 18 October 2019, 20:31 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Assigned   Reopened
Assigned To Lukas Fleischer (lfleischer)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 0%
Votes 0
Private No


The bison binary is linked against while the 'bison' package is missing the direct dependency 'gettext' in the depends array.

Steps to reproduce:
ldd /usr/bin/bison (0x00007ffead7ea000) => /usr/lib/ (0x00007fcd56dce000) => /usr/lib/ (0x00007fcd56c07000) => /usr/lib/ (0x00007fcd56ac1000) => /usr/lib/ (0x00007fcd56a52000)
/lib64/ => /usr/lib64/ (0x00007fcd56f1a000)

pacman -Sii bison
Repository : core
Name : bison
Version : 3.4.2-1
Description : The GNU general-purpose parser generator
Architecture : x86_64
Licenses : GPL3
Groups : base-devel
Provides : None
Depends On : glibc m4 sh
Optional Deps : None
Required By : None
Optional For : None
Conflicts With : None
Replaces : None
Download Size : 615,16 KiB
Installed Size : 2024,00 KiB
Packager : Bartłomiej Piotrowski <>
Build Date : Di 08 Okt 2019 11:34:43 CEST
MD5 Sum : 499f358023027ca46f0d474b877ea7cf
SHA-256 Sum : e72b591218ee5580939fe08c2bfe8a50705d60e5bf28084b07b34f1fcb60a841
Signatures : BBE43771487328A9
This task depends upon

Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Friday, 18 October 2019, 12:45 GMT
$ pacman -Sii gettext
Required By : base [...]

Comment by Alexander Schnaidt (Namarrgon) - Friday, 18 October 2019, 13:19 GMT
  • Field changed: Percent Complete (100% → 0%)
While the dependency is satisfied by the 'base' meta-package this shouldn't be used as an excuse for sloppy packaging in the future. I can't find any mention of the 'base' package being an implicit dependency in any official packaging guidelines.
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Friday, 18 October 2019, 14:33 GMT
Once again:

Q: Why has the group been superseded by a meta-package?
A: The difference with the new base package is that this defines the
level at which we tell you, you have modified your system
sufficiently that you break it, you bought it -- it is your
responsibility to debug issues caused by your overriding basic
assumptions of the system.


This is not "sloppy packaging". The whole purpose of moving to the base metapackage was so we could finally actually tell people that stuff like this isn't a bug. We've been closing bugs like this for years on the grounds that the base group is "assumed installed", why should we start acknowledging them as "sloppy packaging" the instant we *actually* make the base package a requirement?
Comment by Alexander Schnaidt (Namarrgon) - Friday, 18 October 2019, 20:28 GMT
  • Field changed: Percent Complete (100% → 0%)
Where is the documentation? Are all packagers aware that we see the 'base'-dependencies as implicit now (in the same way that base-devel is implied) and that none of them need to be listed in any package anymore?
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Friday, 18 October 2019, 20:30 GMT
Eli, do this again and I will start a campaign to revoke your bug tracker privileges. This IS NOT YOUR CALL TO MAKE.