On Dec 2, 2007 6:19 PM, Robert Emil Berge <list@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 15:23:57 -0600 > "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I still can't understand why this is a problem though... according to > > pacman, the installed size is 12K, and the only possible reason I > > could think of for caring about this dep is size.... could you please > > explain the rationale here? > > I understand Michael's point, I think. He's not talking about the aufs > package at all, but using it as an example for the rule in the Packaging > Guidlines that says modules should always depend on their utilities, > even when you can use the modules without them. He wasn't complaining > about not getting things exaclty as he wants them, he was only asking a > curious question. He wants to know the reason for this exception to the > rule of packages only depending on what the package needs to be useful. > > To me it seems your answer is: We don't have a reason, and stop > bothering us with stupid questions. Or is it; it's ok with deps that > are not necessary as long as they're small? > > Although it's a bit pedantic, I think he has a point too. If you should > follow this principle all the way, the kernel26 package should depend on > cryptsetup, nfs-utils, dosfsutils, fuse, iptables, ntfsprogs etc., you > get my idea.. The rationale is that the aufs and aufs-utils packages are actually part of the exact same source tarball and are simply separated due to the fact that we support multiple kernels. As such, the _original author_ intended them to be used together.
