Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:36 PM Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > > But regardless, we very explicitly wanted to *not* use the name "base" > for recommendations, because it does not make clear that it is in fact > recommendations. > > So the choices were either get rid of the base group and make a base > package, or also get rid of the base group, but make a package named > something entirely differently. There is no option on the table for > there to continue to be a confusing group named "base". > > (...) Some changes were always inevitable. Ok, I'm convinced. p.s.: nano is _fine_.
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base`, package - manual intervention required
Em outubro 10, 2019 17:06 John Crist via arch-general escreveu: I've submitted `base-extras` to the AUR at https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/base-extras/ that contains the missing packages from `base` if someone REALLY wants it. And I have removed it. Following the same criteria, I've also removed base-devel-meta. Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini pgpp5lcAqbT5m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
I want to clarify that I didn't mean "man" requires an internet connection. Arch does and uses the wiki. On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 7:49 PM Nero Claudius Drusus wrote: > Let's face the facts. Man is superfluous for most people learning how to > install Arch, especially since it forces you to have an internet connection > in order to install. > > The wiki installation page so far hasn't included any extras other than > the kernel (at least that I've noticed thus far, please correct me if I'm > wrong). If it creates a broken system then that's a legitimate point of > contention, otherwise it's just adding a couple more packages to your > install script which falls exactly inline with Arch's minimal philosophy. > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 7:26 PM Eli Schwartz via arch-general < > arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > >> On 10/10/19 9:00 PM, Nero Claudius Drusus via arch-general wrote: >> > I've been following this discussion and can't see what the actual >> problem >> > is. I've installed a new system since the change and the installation >> doc's >> > have been updated appropriately. It still works. If you want extra >> packages >> > then add them, this, in my opinion, is what Arch is designed to do. I'm >> not >> > seeing why extra packages need to be installed based upon personal >> > preference. >> There's a community interest in something that helps you install >> high-profile packages such as: >> >> man-db >> man-pages >> less >> diffutils >> texinfo >> vi (required by the POSIX User Portability option, commonly assumed to >> be "the text editor you have even when you don't have anything else") >> >> It is also easy, once you have something for that, to also have it >> prompt you to install: >> >> linux (most people's default kernel) >> linux-firmware >> >> These are some pretty reasonable basic assumptions to make, so it's not >> crazy to think maybe users should be able to have some group of these >> packages to make sure they don't forget anything. It's especially not >> obvious that suddenly you need to install the `man` program as well as >> the core set of linux manpages (containing the 1p section and most of >> the good stuff in sections 2 & 3). But also texinfo, if you want to be >> able to read most documentation from GNU projects which don't ship >> proper manpages. >> >> At what point does updated wiki documentation become a giant list of >> "here's the things 99.% of people need but you'll have to install >> separately after reading some caveat and if you don't, then you will not >> even be able to type in 'man' to figure out your mistakes while offline"? >> >> -- >> Eli Schwartz >> Bug Wrangler and Trusted User >> >>
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On 10/10/19 9:00 PM, Nero Claudius Drusus via arch-general wrote: > I've been following this discussion and can't see what the actual problem > is. I've installed a new system since the change and the installation doc's > have been updated appropriately. It still works. If you want extra packages > then add them, this, in my opinion, is what Arch is designed to do. I'm not > seeing why extra packages need to be installed based upon personal > preference. There's a community interest in something that helps you install high-profile packages such as: man-db man-pages less diffutils texinfo vi (required by the POSIX User Portability option, commonly assumed to be "the text editor you have even when you don't have anything else") It is also easy, once you have something for that, to also have it prompt you to install: linux (most people's default kernel) linux-firmware These are some pretty reasonable basic assumptions to make, so it's not crazy to think maybe users should be able to have some group of these packages to make sure they don't forget anything. It's especially not obvious that suddenly you need to install the `man` program as well as the core set of linux manpages (containing the 1p section and most of the good stuff in sections 2 & 3). But also texinfo, if you want to be able to read most documentation from GNU projects which don't ship proper manpages. At what point does updated wiki documentation become a giant list of "here's the things 99.% of people need but you'll have to install separately after reading some caveat and if you don't, then you will not even be able to type in 'man' to figure out your mistakes while offline"? -- 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
I've been following this discussion and can't see what the actual problem is. I've installed a new system since the change and the installation doc's have been updated appropriately. It still works. If you want extra packages then add them, this, in my opinion, is what Arch is designed to do. I'm not seeing why extra packages need to be installed based upon personal preference. On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 6:48 PM Eli Schwartz via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > On 10/10/19 7:01 AM, pete via arch-general wrote: > > Never mind Ed Vi Assemblers yes all very fancyfull > > hows about you just include joe far easier wordstar commands no mess > just > > worksthe very first thing i ever do install joe best editor of the > lot . > > I have never heard of "joe". I have heard of many other text editors > though. Off the top of my head: > > vi > vim > neovim > vis > ed > emacs > acme > gedit > pluma > xed > geany > leafpad > kate > nano (gross) > vscode > atom > sublime text > notepad++ > Windows Notepad > > Maybe if I even know Windows and macOS and *plan9* text editors before I > know of this "joe", it needs to do better advertising. What are its > features? Why would I want to use it? What merit does it have that we > should recommend people use it? > > I have run pacman -Si joe, and it seems to be an editor. It's > self-described as "Joe's own editor". So let me revise my question: who > is joe, why do I care who he is, and what does his personal editor do > for me? For that matter, if it carefully described as his own editor, am > I allowed to use it? Alternatively, is it designed to be used by other > people than its original intendee? > > -- > Eli Schwartz > Bug Wrangler and Trusted User > >
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On 10/10/19 7:01 AM, pete via arch-general wrote: > Never mind Ed Vi Assemblers yes all very fancyfull > hows about you just include joe far easier wordstar commands no mess just > worksthe very first thing i ever do install joe best editor of the lot . I have never heard of "joe". I have heard of many other text editors though. Off the top of my head: vi vim neovim vis ed emacs acme gedit pluma xed geany leafpad kate nano (gross) vscode atom sublime text notepad++ Windows Notepad Maybe if I even know Windows and macOS and *plan9* text editors before I know of this "joe", it needs to do better advertising. What are its features? Why would I want to use it? What merit does it have that we should recommend people use it? I have run pacman -Si joe, and it seems to be an editor. It's self-described as "Joe's own editor". So let me revise my question: who is joe, why do I care who he is, and what does his personal editor do for me? For that matter, if it carefully described as his own editor, am I allowed to use it? Alternatively, is it designed to be used by other people than its original intendee? -- 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
I am sorry if this is a repeated/dumb question. What exactly does the base package have? I.e. if i install only base "pacstrap /mnt base", then what stuff will i get in it? Knowing this i can decide what stuff i have to install in addition.
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On 10/10/19 7:14 AM, Jonathan Steel via arch-general wrote: > I think we should have created a "minimal" group rather than repurposing > the base one. Then as a separate issue to tackle, add "kernel" and "editor" > etc to the base group which would prompt the user to choose, or if > non-interactive install the first listed. Groups don't "depend" on things like virtual provides=(), you tag an actual .pkg.tar.xz with a group and then search for every pkgname that has that group. So I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. But regardless, we very explicitly wanted to *not* use the name "base" for recommendations, because it does not make clear that it is in fact recommendations. So the choices were either get rid of the base group and make a base package, or also get rid of the base group, but make a package named something entirely differently. There is no option on the table for there to continue to be a confusing group named "base". If you're really in love with groups and don't want to see a metapackage then once again we would still need to delete the base group in order to create a "minimal" group, and any group of recommendations would need to be named something like, oh, "base-extras". So, once again, you would not be able to `pacstrap /mnt base`. Some changes were always inevitable. -- 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 Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:14 AM Jonathan Steel via arch-general wrote: > > I think we should have created a "minimal" group rather than repurposing > the base one. Then as a separate issue to tackle, add "kernel" and "editor" > etc to the base group which would prompt the user to choose, or if > non-interactive install the first listed. Yes indeed. I too think this would be so much less of a breaking change. I think this is more sane than changing 'base' as it is already done and then providing a 'base-extras'. But, it is already done, so I don't know.
[arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base`, package - manual intervention required
I've submitted `base-extras` to the AUR at https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/base-extras/ that contains the missing packages from `base` if someone REALLY wants it.
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
I think we should have created a "minimal" group rather than repurposing the base one. Then as a separate issue to tackle, add "kernel" and "editor" etc to the base group which would prompt the user to choose, or if non-interactive install the first listed. -- Jonathan Steel Trusted User
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:44:08 +0100 Andy Pieters wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 10:41, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > Maybe I'm just old > > ... > > > everyone should learn at least a few vi commands > > ... > > > I still makes me uncomfortable knowing it isn't installed by default. > > > > Not old enough! Everyone should just learn ed(1). :-) > > > > ed? They should learn how to edit a text file using assembly Never mind Ed Vi Assemblers yes all very fancyfull hows about you just include joe far easier wordstar commands no mess just worksthe very first thing i ever do install joe best editor of the lot . Pete .
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 10:41, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > Maybe I'm just old > ... > > everyone should learn at least a few vi commands > ... > > I still makes me uncomfortable knowing it isn't installed by default. > > Not old enough! Everyone should just learn ed(1). :-) > ed? They should learn how to edit a text file using assembly
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
Hi Greg, > Maybe I'm just old ... > everyone should learn at least a few vi commands ... > I still makes me uncomfortable knowing it isn't installed by default. Not old enough! Everyone should just learn ed(1). :-) -- Cheers, Ralph.
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
Maybe I'm just old but not having a text editor by default in the rootfs seems wrong. I had a professor once say everyone should learn at least a few vi commands because "no matter what distro/ flavor of Unix you have to deal with vi will always be there". I admit one hundred percent that it doesn't need to be in base, and a simple pacstrap base vi solves the problem, but I still makes me uncomfortable knowing it isn't installed by default. I think thinning out base is a good idea however and vi is not necessary to boot a system. All that said I would be interested in a bit of the original design choices around the base package. Is there any historical information on why it was setup the way it was? Will the removal of the kernel by default from the package be replaced by a new depends/provided relationship where base depends on "kernel" and any of the kernel packages provide "kernel"? On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 2:52 AM Óscar García Amor via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: > El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 4:27, Ram Kumar via arch-general > () escribió: > > > > Hi, i am not clear why the base group is being replaced.. i searched in > > wiki and couldnt get a clear idea why. Could anyone plz explain? > > Yes. There is a plan to replace all package groups with metapackages? > > -- > Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me >
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 4:27, Ram Kumar via arch-general () escribió: > > Hi, i am not clear why the base group is being replaced.. i searched in > wiki and couldnt get a clear idea why. Could anyone plz explain? Yes. There is a plan to replace all package groups with metapackages? -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
Re: [arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
> A good explanation in installation page could solve that. Yeah this is what we need..
