On 18/03/2019 00.35, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote:
> [2019-03-18 00:25:09 +0100] Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public:
>> Assuming we implement this group or meta-package as something of policy,
>> i.e. every repository package is assumed to depend on it. This would then
>> make base
[2019-03-17 13:35:55 -1000] Gaetan Bisson:
> Only 156 packages have glibc in their depends array.
My bad. It's 624 packages for a total of 10.000.
Cheers.
--
Gaetan
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[2019-03-18 00:25:09 +0100] Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public:
> Assuming we implement this group or meta-package as something of policy, i.e.
> every repository package is assumed to depend on it. This would then make
> base similar to base-devel, except for depends() instead of makedepends().
>
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 08:55:27 +1000
Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 13/2/19 8:17 am, Levente Polyak via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > On 2/12/19 7:16 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote:
> >> [2019-02-12 16:40:08 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
> >>> Just in case it
[2019-02-13 08:55:27 +1000] Allan McRae via arch-dev-public:
> On 13/2/19 8:17 am, Levente Polyak via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > On 2/12/19 7:16 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote:
> >> [2019-02-12 16:40:08 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
> >>> Just in case it wasn’t clear, my
Le 12/02/2019 à 19:16, Gaetan Bisson a écrit :
> [2019-02-12 16:40:08 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
>> Just in case it wasn’t clear, my answer would have been mostly the same
>> as Eli’s.
>>
>> So, Gaetan, Allan and Bartłomiej (or anyone else for that matter), do
>> you have further
On 2/12/19 11:55 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 13/2/19 8:17 am, Levente Polyak via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> On 2/12/19 7:16 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>> [2019-02-12 16:40:08 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
Just in case it wasn’t clear, my answer would have been
On 13/2/19 8:17 am, Levente Polyak via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 2/12/19 7:16 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> [2019-02-12 16:40:08 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
>>> Just in case it wasn’t clear, my answer would have been mostly the same
>>> as Eli’s.
>>>
>>> So,
On 2/12/19 7:16 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote:
> [2019-02-12 16:40:08 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
>> Just in case it wasn’t clear, my answer would have been mostly the same
>> as Eli’s.
>>
>> So, Gaetan, Allan and Bartłomiej (or anyone else for that matter), do
>> you
[2019-02-12 16:40:08 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
> Just in case it wasn’t clear, my answer would have been mostly the same
> as Eli’s.
>
> So, Gaetan, Allan and Bartłomiej (or anyone else for that matter), do
> you have further comments/questions regarding this, does the existence
>
Le 06/02/2019 à 00:26, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public a écrit :
> On 2/5/19 4:31 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> Bruno,
>>
>> We all seem to agree that [base] plays no satisfactory role in its
>> current state, so I think Allan definitely has a point: let us first
>> turn [base]
On 2/5/19 4:31 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Bruno,
>
> We all seem to agree that [base] plays no satisfactory role in its
> current state, so I think Allan definitely has a point: let us first
> turn [base] into something useful, and only then wonder if we need
> something more.
Bruno,
We all seem to agree that [base] plays no satisfactory role in its
current state, so I think Allan definitely has a point: let us first
turn [base] into something useful, and only then wonder if we need
something more.
[2019-02-05 14:38:26 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
> Le
On 5/2/19 11:38 pm, Bruno Pagani wrote:
> Maybe. As I said in my answer to Bartłomiej, I don’t know if beginners
> know enough things to install what they need beyond the minimum system,
> or if they just read the wiki about doing this or that, which might
> assume they have the current base group
Le 05/02/2019 à 12:54, Allan McRae a écrit :
> 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
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
Le 22/01/2019 à 14:44, Bartłomiej Piotrowski via arch-dev-public a écrit :
> On 22/01/2019 00.23, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> 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
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
On 2019/01/23 0:26, Doug Newgard via arch-dev-public wrote:
> This is simply not true. devtools/makechrootpkg installs base-devel only, not
> base, so it's totally irrelevant to this discussion.
>
> Doug
Oh I am sorry for the misinformation.
--
Jiachen YANG (farseerfc)
signature.asc
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:09:32 +0900
Jiachen YANG via arch-dev-public wrote:
> Currently the "base" group serves at least 2 purposes for us:
...
> 2. A base chroot environment for devtools/makechrootpkg to prepare
> packaging.
...
> Currently, devtools/makechrootpkg will install "base" group for
On 2019/01/22 7:26, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 1/21/19 5:03 PM, Levente Polyak via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> # Proposal
>>
>>
>> The proposed end result is:
>> - base: convenient helper group for quickly getting a working system
>> when installing, must include the new
On 22/01/2019 00.23, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> 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
Le 22/01/2019 à 03:25, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public a écrit :
> [2019-01-21 18:58:54 -0500] Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public:
>> On 1/21/19 6:53 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>> I agree with this package list. It's missing mkinitcpio though.
>> No it is not, mkinitcpio
[2019-01-21 18:58:54 -0500] Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public:
> On 1/21/19 6:53 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > I agree with this package list. It's missing mkinitcpio though.
>
> No it is not, mkinitcpio is definitively not needed.
>
> It's only required in order to
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 06:58:54PM -0500, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> The most recent version of my PKGBUILD draft for this "base-system"
> PKGBUILD (which I shared with Levente during the planning stages of this
> proposal) can be found here: https://paste.xinu.at/KZmYqQwIO/
FYI
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;
On 1/21/19 6:53 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-dev-public wrote:
> I agree with this package list. It's missing mkinitcpio though.
No it is not, mkinitcpio is definitively not needed.
It's only required in order to execute the pacman hooks for a linux
kernel package (or do so manually). And
Em janeiro 21, 2019 20:03 Levente Polyak via arch-dev-public escreveu:
# Proposal
There is no strict definition of what a minimal Arch Linux system
installation must contain. However in reality we mostly don’t add any
packages that are in the base group as a dependency to other packages,
which
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
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
On 1/21/19 5:03 PM, Levente Polyak via arch-dev-public wrote:
> # Proposal
>
> There is no strict definition of what a minimal Arch Linux system
> installation must contain. However in reality we mostly don’t add any
> packages that are in the base group as a dependency to other packages,
> which
# Proposal
There is no strict definition of what a minimal Arch Linux system
installation must contain. However in reality we mostly don’t add any
packages that are in the base group as a dependency to other packages,
which basically makes it a hard requirement.
The current way of defining a
32 matches
Mail list logo
