re: <oaken-source> why are we discussing adding a base-extra metapackage / group? Isn't that something upstream should be doing?
i think they are discussing it - my reason to propose it now is that currently, `pacstrap base` no longer installs a working system - even if we fix the init-system conflicts, one still must `pacstrap base linux-libre` at the bare minimum to get a working system (and a boot-loader too) - in order to get an equivalent system as what the base group once installed, that pacstrap command would need to include all of the packages in my previous post if thats the way it is going to be then the documentation could be updated; but it would be quite ugly indeed - my interest is raising this topic now, is that i also need to add that mess to calamares and parabolaiso; and if this is a temporary situation (if arch does add a 'base-extras' package), then i will need to revert that anyways - so much simpler to add a 'base-extras' package now - it would be a harmless optional thing, so i dont see any reason not to do it - even if it helps only the installers - the thing to discuss is what packages should go in it probably a better name would be 'parabola-full' or something similar - i would also like to add a 'parabola-desktop' for the same reason - as it is now, i am maintaining the package lists for the installers in three different places; which is kinda tedious to manage - those are: the package lists for what goes on the various live systems, the package lists for the ncurses installers, and the package lists for calamares - it would be very good to consolidate those; and a good way to manage that is with meta-packages + 'provides' _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
