El lun, 11-11-2019 a las 21:32 -0500, bill-auger escribió: > 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
I would wait to see what upstream does, but things like parabola- desktop (which Arch isn't likely to get sth. like that) could be added without problem. I saw some archiso commits and they had to update their package lists because of this new base metapackage thing, so maybe base-extras would not kill anyone, I feel like this new adoption of base metapkg with less pkgs that the ex base group gives users more flexibility in terms of which pkgs they want to install. For example, nano was in base group, but what about ppl who doesn't use it? it doesn't really belong to a very base installation, and here is my favorite part: you want it? then install it yourself, and that's the Arch philosophy, *do it yourself* _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
