On 5/2/19 9:06 pm, Bruno Pagani wrote: > Le 22/01/2019 à 00:59, Allan McRae a écrit : >> On 22/1/19 9:41 am, Bruno Pagani wrote: >>> 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). >> "Anyone knowing their stuff" is the essentially the stated Arch target >> audience. > > So apparently we did not answer all concerns here. I don’t expect Arch > users to know thing so well that they know exactly what tools are in > which packages when they install Arch for the first time. I think we > should not mistake Arch Power Users, people that have a level of > knowledge above Arch Users, that are just generic Linux Power Users. > >> So, the definitions of the sets of packages are: >> >> base-system - essential packages we assume everyone has installed >> (previous definition of base...) > > To be clearer, the new proposition would be to call this arch-system to > avoid confusion with base. However, note that this “previous definition > of base” is definitively not that clear: when I installed Arch, I read > things as “base is a convenient helper to get almost every standard > tools you could need to do your install”. > >> base group - base-system plus other packages some people probably >> want/expect and support packages for filesystem types most people don't >> actually need. > For me, base will be what it has ever been: a fast way to get started as > an Arch beginner. >> Maybe slightly facetious on that last one, but I don't see a clear need >> for the base group once base-system exists. > > Because, as an Arch dev, you definitively qualify as an Arch Power > Users. I wouldn’t use base either for myself, but I firmly believe most > Arch beginners would. > > Does that make sense to you, or do you still think every new Arch User > should already know exactly what is required to get started? >
If someone knows they want to set up logical volumes and drive encryption, then they know enough to install lvm and cryptsetup. Same with jfsutils, xfsutils. So I don't think they should be in the base group (e.g. I would not call jfsutils a standard tool). If we remove the excess from base, then we are down to a very small difference between that and archlinux-system. Only e2fsprogs, man, and an editor different? So I see the proposed archlinux-system group being essentially what base should be. A
