Le 22/01/2019 à 00:23, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public a écrit : > On 22/1/19 8:03 am, Levente Polyak via arch-dev-public wrote: >> Everything that won’t be part of base-system needs to be added as a >> dependency to all requiring packages; alternatively don't omit any first >> level runtime dependencies at all. >> >> This package should only depend on strictly required explicit packages >> to get a working minimal Arch Linux system. >> >> The proposed end result is: >> - base: convenient helper group for quickly getting a working system >> when installing, must include the new base-system package >> - base-system: package defining the minimum dependencies for a working >> base runtime > I think the proposal is OK. I'm not comfortable with our line about > base group packages being required given how many of them I don't have > installed. > > However... I don't like idea of the base group and base-system package > existing together. You definition of what base-system should be is much > the same as what the base group was defined to be. What package > justifies itself in the base group, but would not be in base-system? It > seems we would have two very similar things where one would do. > > Allan
In the proposal, base would really just be a convenient helper for e.g. beginners installing their system, so they could get all tools that are often used during install (e.g. cryptsetup, lvm2, various FS/network tools, etc.) or (POSIX) tools people coming from other distros would expect to be here by default (man pages, nano/vi…) but that are interactive ones and thus not really required for operating. Anyone knowing their stuff could just install base-system + what they actually need (e.g., I would install cryptsetup and vim, and not care about netctl, xfsprogs or lvm2). Does that make sense to you? Bruno
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
