El jue, 24 mar 2022 a las 8:14, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public (<arch-dev-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) escribió: > > On 24/3/22 11:07, Brett Cornwall via arch-dev-public wrote: > > Summary: Reject AUR packages that fulfill package dependencies without > > providing the files/binaries of the package in question. But why? I don't quite understand why this should be banned. IMHO I think it is something very interesting and also, as described in the RFC, has a clear and justified use. It would be different if there was a way to tell Pacman by configuration to assume that these dependencies are covered, but as far as I know it is not possible. And while it is true that you can pass the `--assume-installed` option to it, but that must always be done at run time and if you have a high number of dummy dependencies it can be messy. Greetings -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
