Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
You can take this one step further and create your own repo to host said packages. That way you can build aur stuff in one place and deploy it out to a few machines at once. We have about 4+ arch machines in the house and this is where we are headed. On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:54 PM Genes Lists via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > > May I offer a suggestion and you may already be doing thi; its what I do > to create Arch installs customized to my own needs. > > Either: > > a) Create a simple script with installs a list of packages you want. >Can be as simple as a shell script with a list of commands like: >pacman -S --needed linux linux-custom mdadm lvm2 >pacman -S --needed networkmanager >pacman -S --needed vi > etc > > Adjust pacman options to taste > > or if you're a little more energetic and looking for a bit more fun: > > (b) create one or more personal meta packages which you can then simply > pacman -U. > > Every install you do, just copy the script or package file(s) to new > install and you get standard install just the way you want it. > > I suspect many arch users do something like this anyway. > > gene >
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On 10/8/19 4:34 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > Really, I wish we would do as I'd wanted and transfer the "essential > packages" which aren't actually essential and were thus not included in > base.. to a new *group* called "base-extras", which would reflect its > status as being mere recommendations, while providing a convenient way > to choose to interactively install them, and allowing the Installation > Guide to transition from: Sounds good to me - do you have a suggested list of packages for base-extras or at least the list of what was pulled from the old base. Might be good for folks to add those to private install script / meta package until such time as base-extras may be available. Thanks for mentioning linux-firmware - I just added kernels and a few other items to my own, but I missed that one
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
The base-extras group really sounds like a great solution. Please consider this approach! Obviously, you don't need to re-install Arch too often, but I like to experiment with various configurations on various machines and I have gotten used to what is in that base group. Thanks! Paul Stoetzer On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 4:34 PM Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > > On 10/7/19 12:02 AM, Marc Ranolfi via arch-general wrote: > >> The `base` group has been replaced by a metapackage of the same name, we > > advise users to install this package (`pacman -Syu base`), as it is > > effectively mandatory from now on. > > > > Please, was this discussed somewhere? I want to know the details, and > > gather what is needed to update the 'Installation guide' article in the > > wiki. In particular, I want to understand why essential packages for new > > installations, such as the kernel and a text editor, are not included > > (actually I see the kernel is an optional dependency). > > Really, I wish we would do as I'd wanted and transfer the "essential > packages" which aren't actually essential and were thus not included in > base.. to a new *group* called "base-extras", which would reflect its > status as being mere recommendations, while providing a convenient way > to choose to interactively install them, and allowing the Installation > Guide to transition from: > > pacstrap /mnt base > > to > > pacstrap /mnt base base-extras > > instead of becoming "and also decide whether you want the kernel, and > also probably linux-firmware (but check whether your hardware needs > firmware first), and oh, if you want a text editor, go install one of > those too I guess, and in case you feel super surprised later when info > and man don't work, you might want to install texinfo and man-db (and > man-pages if you also want manpages) and a dozen other things that most > people want even if they don't realize it". > > And now we need to cherry-pick tons of packages for the archiso, and we > need to cherry-pick tons of packages into the installation guide, and > there is nothing straightforward to tell anyone what to do today. So > we've taken a step forward and a step back, and mostly weren't ready for > it either way. > > -- > Eli Schwartz > Bug Wrangler and Trusted User >
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On 10/7/19 12:02 AM, Marc Ranolfi via arch-general wrote: >> The `base` group has been replaced by a metapackage of the same name, we > advise users to install this package (`pacman -Syu base`), as it is > effectively mandatory from now on. > > Please, was this discussed somewhere? I want to know the details, and > gather what is needed to update the 'Installation guide' article in the > wiki. In particular, I want to understand why essential packages for new > installations, such as the kernel and a text editor, are not included > (actually I see the kernel is an optional dependency). Really, I wish we would do as I'd wanted and transfer the "essential packages" which aren't actually essential and were thus not included in base.. to a new *group* called "base-extras", which would reflect its status as being mere recommendations, while providing a convenient way to choose to interactively install them, and allowing the Installation Guide to transition from: pacstrap /mnt base to pacstrap /mnt base base-extras instead of becoming "and also decide whether you want the kernel, and also probably linux-firmware (but check whether your hardware needs firmware first), and oh, if you want a text editor, go install one of those too I guess, and in case you feel super surprised later when info and man don't work, you might want to install texinfo and man-db (and man-pages if you also want manpages) and a dozen other things that most people want even if they don't realize it". And now we need to cherry-pick tons of packages for the archiso, and we need to cherry-pick tons of packages into the installation guide, and there is nothing straightforward to tell anyone what to do today. So we've taken a step forward and a step back, and mostly weren't ready for it either way. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
May I offer a suggestion and you may already be doing thi; its what I do to create Arch installs customized to my own needs. Either: a) Create a simple script with installs a list of packages you want. Can be as simple as a shell script with a list of commands like: pacman -S --needed linux linux-custom mdadm lvm2 pacman -S --needed networkmanager pacman -S --needed vi etc Adjust pacman options to taste or if you're a little more energetic and looking for a bit more fun: (b) create one or more personal meta packages which you can then simply pacman -U. Every install you do, just copy the script or package file(s) to new install and you get standard install just the way you want it. I suspect many arch users do something like this anyway. gene
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On 10/8/19 1:45 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 10/08/2019 01:33 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
>> Because this is not about containers. There are tons of things in the
>> old base group which I don't want installed on my heavyweight X11
>> desktop which is used for media consumption.
>>
>> I don't need netct (because networkmanager is love), s-nail (unuseful in
>> practice) or vi (symlink to vim) as a baseline fact.
>>
>> I don't need cryptsetup or device-mapper if I'm not opting into an
>> encrypted filesystem, but this does not matter as I cannot get rid of
>> either one due to systemd performing shared library links to
>> libcryptsetup.so and therefore also having a depends+=('cryptsetup')
>>
>> I do not need mdadm or lvm2, because I don't use RAID or lvm, so why do
>> you think my system is unusable without it? Note: in practice, both are
>> required by libblockdev, which means if you use udisks2 you have both
>> installed anyway.
> As long at it passes the Allan test, then so be it. I do use mdadm, netctl,
> s-nail (mailx) but agree with vim as baseline. The point being no kernel? So
> now a 'base' install does not result in a running system? It seems like
> forcing the install of `base` + (a list of other packages) just to result in a
> bootable system will create more problems then it solves. At least a meta of
> 'base-legacy' would provide the same install capability. As for the argument
> advances that this was due to those looking for a container install, why not
> create a 'base-container' or 'base-minimal' and leave the traditional 'base'
> alone?
>
There are multiple kernels officially supported. Vanilla, lts, zen, hardened,
etc.
So it probably was left out of base because they didn't want to force people to
take the extra step of changing kernels.
Yaro
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On 10/08/2019 01:33 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> Because this is not about containers. There are tons of things in the
> old base group which I don't want installed on my heavyweight X11
> desktop which is used for media consumption.
>
> I don't need netct (because networkmanager is love), s-nail (unuseful in
> practice) or vi (symlink to vim) as a baseline fact.
>
> I don't need cryptsetup or device-mapper if I'm not opting into an
> encrypted filesystem, but this does not matter as I cannot get rid of
> either one due to systemd performing shared library links to
> libcryptsetup.so and therefore also having a depends+=('cryptsetup')
>
> I do not need mdadm or lvm2, because I don't use RAID or lvm, so why do
> you think my system is unusable without it? Note: in practice, both are
> required by libblockdev, which means if you use udisks2 you have both
> installed anyway.
As long at it passes the Allan test, then so be it. I do use mdadm, netctl,
s-nail (mailx) but agree with vim as baseline. The point being no kernel? So
now a 'base' install does not result in a running system? It seems like
forcing the install of `base` + (a list of other packages) just to result in a
bootable system will create more problems then it solves. At least a meta of
'base-legacy' would provide the same install capability. As for the argument
advances that this was due to those looking for a container install, why not
create a 'base-container' or 'base-minimal' and leave the traditional 'base'
alone?
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On 10/8/19 2:20 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 10/06/2019 11:22 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general wrote:
>> Yes, this was discussed over the years in several threads. The most recent
>> being [0].
>>
>> Lacking a kernel is mainly for container based environments. And some
>> superfluous
>> packages were also removed from the group, like an editor.
>>
>> The necessary changes to the installation guide were already made [1].
>
> All of this seems like a lot of unnecessary shuffling to what has been a
> reliable base install for the past decade. Why on earth no simply create a
> 'base-container' group to provide the install for those desiring an install to
> support containers and leave the traditional base group alone. The lack
> cryptsetup, device-mapper, dhcpcd, mdadm, netctl, s-nail, vi and which in base
> seems to leave a 'base' install very unusable.
Because this is not about containers. There are tons of things in the
old base group which I don't want installed on my heavyweight X11
desktop which is used for media consumption.
I don't need netct (because networkmanager is love), s-nail (unuseful in
practice) or vi (symlink to vim) as a baseline fact.
I don't need cryptsetup or device-mapper if I'm not opting into an
encrypted filesystem, but this does not matter as I cannot get rid of
either one due to systemd performing shared library links to
libcryptsetup.so and therefore also having a depends+=('cryptsetup')
I do not need mdadm or lvm2, because I don't use RAID or lvm, so why do
you think my system is unusable without it? Note: in practice, both are
required by libblockdev, which means if you use udisks2 you have both
installed anyway.
--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On 10/06/2019 11:22 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general wrote: > Yes, this was discussed over the years in several threads. The most recent > being [0]. > > Lacking a kernel is mainly for container based environments. And some > superfluous > packages were also removed from the group, like an editor. > > The necessary changes to the installation guide were already made [1]. All of this seems like a lot of unnecessary shuffling to what has been a reliable base install for the past decade. Why on earth no simply create a 'base-container' group to provide the install for those desiring an install to support containers and leave the traditional base group alone. The lack cryptsetup, device-mapper, dhcpcd, mdadm, netctl, s-nail, vi and which in base seems to leave a 'base' install very unusable. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
