Add `pacutils` to `base-devel`

Hi,

Summary

Include the pacutils package in the base-devel meta package.

Motivation

At the moment, devtools heavily relies on pacman for everything that has to do with package management. However, using pacman in scripted environments is not supported (see here and more explicitly here). The recommended alternative is pacutils (pacutils in official repo). It's use is limited though, not by what it can do, but by the fact that much of its use is needed inside clean chroots - where only base-devel can be assumed to be installed.
Hence this proposal of adding pacutils to base-devel.

Specification

pacutils is currently in extra. Since base-devel is in core, pacutils needs to be moved to core too.

1. Move pacutils to core repository
2. Add pacutils to base-devel meta package.

Drawbacks

It's another package in base-devel.

As explained above, there is a reason for the package to be included and a clear use case has been presented.

Alternatives Considered

Continue using pacman within devtools.

pacman does not support scripting and pacutils is the recommended alternative.

If devtools has issues with pacman, they should be fixed in pacman

The relevant issue that started this (archlinux/devtools#163 (closed)) won't be adequately addressed by pacman due to scripting being unsupported. Possibilities for improvement have been raised with Allan, who rightly refuses to consider them since support for using pacman in scripting [...] should not be added (pacman/pacman#60 (comment 131515)).

Add pacutils to clean chroots as if it was part of base-devel.

This would have the same effect as this proposal, but it doesn't seem right as base-devel is supposed to include everything needed for dev work. It would also incur costs in various other places (ArchWiki update, adaptation of tooling).

Conclusion

Adding pacutils to base-devel would help solve a long-standing issue in devtools and assist with compliance with the scripting restriction of pacman.

This issue is written similar to an RFC, though it is not supposed to be one. I don't think one is necessary. Based on the (not-yet-merged) RFC#21, this would probably fall into the category of Moderate Change, requiring at least an announcement in arch-dev-public.

What do you think?

-- Vekhir