Le 17/03/2019 à 23:13, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public a écrit :
[2019-03-17 19:07:23 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
This is a follow-up on the last month discussion about a “minimal base system”.
Creating a new thread removed from the discussion we had a month ago just makes it so much harder for all of us to remember what everyone's arguments and counter-arguments were. Please do not do this.
Well, people on IRC advised me to do the exact opposite of what you said (a.k.a. starting a new thread with a TL;DR of the previous one), so…
For my part, I thought we had reached consensus with Allan's message:
Summary: You propose what you want your new group to be (metapackage, list of dependencies, etc.) and we adopt this as the new base.
If that is not satisfactory to you, please reply to that specific message and say why. That would have been far more constructive than your present message which rehashes some of the discussion we've already had and adds new questions I have no idea where you're going with.
I was satisfied with the consensus we reached, but when I asked on IRC how I should revive the thread so that we move on with that proposal to an actual implementation, I faced concerns about this proposal from several persons. The conclusion of our discussions was that we apparently didn’t even agree on the premises, so that the discussion should restart at a more fundamental level.
From this discussion and parallel ones that happened on IRC,
Not everyone is awake all the time, which is why decisions are made on this very list, not on IRC. New arguments should have been posted to the previous thread.
And I hope they will, since I was asked to resend a new e-mail with the base line-up of the matter at hand.
Before going further on any proposal in those directions, I’ve thought it surely requires more input, and not only from the ~10 people at most that already participated in those discussions
It's probably safe to guess that people who haven't participated so far just aren't interesting in participating. Besides, I think you'd have more feedback and clear answers to a concrete proposal.
I actually thought the same, but that was before I got more feedback on IRC (of either people that missed the thread, or had their concerns unadressed because not understood by others in the way they were meant to be expressed for instance). I’ll let this thread in this way for some days on move-on with a concrete proposal depending on the output.
People seem concerned about implicit dependencies at all, and also wonder about group vs metapackage. All of this is related, for instance we don’t need a metapackage if we go the no implicit deps way, and I don’t really care either about the content of the base-whatever in this case.
In my case, I don’t have strong opinions about implicit deps from a reasonably small metapackage (i.e. previous proposal) or no implicit deps at all (someone else proposal), but I’m strongly against transitive deps in any case. So I’m not decided yet on which proposal to push forward on.