On Jan 29, 2008 11:22 AM, Jason Chu <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 07:55:26AM -0600, Kevin Monceaux wrote:
> > Jason,
> >
> > On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Jason Chu wrote:
> >
> >> Being the guy who wrote namcap, I'm pretty sure it doesn't do this at all.
> >>
> >> Can I get a copy of the PKGBUILD to test with? It sounds like it should be
> >> detecting these...
> >
> > I sent you a private e-mail with the PKGBUILD attached.
>
> Ok, after building the PKGBUILD and running namcap on it, I got these
> messages:
>
> [jchu@wingnut a]$ namcap c3270-3.3.7p1-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
> c3270 W: Dependency included but already satisfied (ncurses)
> c3270 W: Dependency included but already satisfied (readline)
>
> The depends line looks like this:
>
> depends=('ncurses' 'openssl' 'readline')
>
> Notice how openssl isn't listed by namcap as already satisfied? If you
> follow the dependency tree, you'll find that ncurses and readline and
> covered by a dependency on openssl (openssl -> glibc -> bash -> readline ->
> ncurses).
>
> Namcap tries to give you the smallest subset of dependencies that your
> package needs.
>
> Now, there was a proposal to change the functionality. To list all of the
> packages that your package directly depends on. This will eventually
> happen, but that's not how it works right now.
>
> In conclusion, there is nothing in namcap about ignoring dependencies in
> the base group.
Ah - yeah, that makes more sense - sorry for the confusion. I'm
curious, though, why he reported it listing no deps missing at all
when his depends=() array was empty.
