FS#76171 - [pacman] add required dependencies (for makepkg)

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by David Runge (dvzrv) - Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 11:00 GMT
Last edited by Buggy McBugFace (bugbot) - Saturday, 25 November 2023, 20:14 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To Levente Polyak (anthraxx)
Morten Linderud (Foxboron)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 2
Private No

Details

Description: The required dependencies of e.g. makepkg are currently not dependencies of the pacman package.
The dependencies for makepkg are dragged in via transitive dependencies (e.g. via the base-devel group in our build environments), but the cleaner approach would be to identify the dependencies and adding them to the list of dependencies for the pacman package.

One upside to a proper dependency resolution is, that it would allow us to e.g. drop fakeroot from base-devel later on, as the reason why fakeroot is in the group is due to makepkg requiring it (the same is probably true for other dependencies).

Additional info:
* pacman 6.0.1-8

Steps to reproduce:
n/a
This task depends upon

Closed by  Buggy McBugFace (bugbot)
Saturday, 25 November 2023, 20:14 GMT
Reason for closing:  Moved
Additional comments about closing:  https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/p ackaging/packages/pacman/issues/2
Comment by Levente Polyak (anthraxx) - Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 11:04 GMT
This goes far beyond just fakeroot and would need to cover other deps like binutils etc as well.
Comment by David Runge (dvzrv) - Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 11:15 GMT
Good point. I'd argue that's certainly something achievable and useful though!

If you want I can make the ticket title more generic.
Comment by Andreas Radke (AndyRTR) - Tuesday, 11 October 2022, 17:12 GMT
Fakeroot would only become an optional dependency as makepkg can build packages well without it.
So we would end up with users and packages building without fakeroot at all. We for sure don't want that.
Comment by Ike Devolder (BlackEagle) - Wednesday, 12 October 2022, 15:14 GMT
IMO, makepkg should be moved to devtools or something related then? Since it is totally not usefull to have some "dev" packages installed on production systems that only use pacman to install/update packages.
Comment by Levente Polyak (anthraxx) - Wednesday, 12 October 2022, 15:30 GMT
@BlackEagle: That's not really the right place for it, but what i'd propose is to just make pacman a split package and split out a `makepkg` package. Then we can depend on `makepkg` to pull in whatever it needs. We try to minimize splitting out crazy, but this definitively makes a lot of sense considering the sheer amount of additional dependencies on top of stock pacman requirements.
Comment by Toolybird (Toolybird) - Sunday, 11 December 2022, 00:20 GMT
Dupe  FS#76790 
Comment by Aviana Cruz (AvianaCruz) - Sunday, 11 December 2022, 04:46 GMT
I am wondering why https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/base-devel-meta is not in the official repo. If it is, we can let `pacman` optionally depends on it.

Loading...