On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 17:08:27 +1000 Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 19/01/11 15:19, Kaiting Chen wrote: > > Okay everyone, every time I ask I get a different answer. According > > to Dziedzic and Allan 'glibc' does *not* belong in 'depends'. Also > > Dziedzic votes that *no* package in 'base' should be in 'depends'. > > Can we settle once and for all what the correct policy is? And then > > can we update the wiki page and all of these packages > > http://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/i686/glibc/so that they > > reflect the policy? --Kaiting. > > > > In general, I think packages in 'base' need listed. Mainly because I > do not install a fair number of the base packages and would have even > less of them installed if they were not listed as dependencies. If we allow users to not (explicitly) install base packages and support such schemes by adding more detailed dependencies, then we could just as well scratch the base group, because it becomes pointless. Actually I would prefer this approach: throw the concept of the base group away, all the *needed* packages will get installed anyway, because they are dependencies for packages the user explictly wants. Dieter
