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 :
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 required explicit packages to get a working minimal Arch Linux system.
The proposed end result is: - base: convenient helper group for quickly getting a working system when installing, must include the new base-system package - base-system: package defining the minimum dependencies for a working base runtime I think the proposal is OK. I'm not comfortable with our line about
On 22/1/19 8:03 am, Levente Polyak via arch-dev-public wrote: base group packages being required given how many of them I don't have installed.
However... I don't like idea of the base group and base-system package existing together. You definition of what base-system should be is much the same as what the base group was defined to be. What package justifies itself in the base group, but would not be in base-system? It seems we would have two very similar things where one would do.
Allan In the proposal, base would really just be a convenient helper for e.g. beginners installing their system, so they could get all tools that are often used during install (e.g. cryptsetup, lvm2, various FS/network tools, etc.) or (POSIX) tools people coming from other distros would expect to be here by default (man pages, nano/vi…) but that are interactive ones and thus not really required for operating.
Anyone knowing their stuff could just install base-system + what they actually need (e.g., I would install cryptsetup and vim, and not care about netctl, xfsprogs or lvm2). "Anyone knowing their stuff" is the essentially the stated Arch target audience. So apparently we did not answer all concerns here. I don’t expect Arch users to know thing so well that they know exactly what tools are in which packages when they install Arch for the first time. I think we should not mistake Arch Power Users, people that have a level of knowledge above Arch Users, that are just generic Linux Power Users.
So, the definitions of the sets of packages are:
base-system - essential packages we assume everyone has installed (previous definition of base...) To be clearer, the new proposition would be to call this arch-system to avoid confusion with base. However, note that this “previous definition of base” is definitively not that clear: when I installed Arch, I read things as “base is a convenient helper to get almost every standard tools you could need to do your install”.
base group - base-system plus other packages some people probably want/expect and support packages for filesystem types most people don't actually need. For me, base will be what it has ever been: a fast way to get started as an Arch beginner. Maybe slightly facetious on that last one, but I don't see a clear need for the base group once base-system exists. Because, as an Arch dev, you definitively qualify as an Arch Power Users. I wouldn’t use base either for myself, but I firmly believe most Arch beginners would.
Does that make sense to you, or do you still think every new Arch User should already know exactly what is required to get started?
If someone knows they want to set up logical volumes and drive encryption, then they know enough to install lvm and cryptsetup. Same with jfsutils, xfsutils. So I don't think they should be in the base group (e.g. I would not call jfsutils a standard tool).
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 installed.
If we remove the excess from base, then we are down to a very small difference between that and archlinux-system. Only e2fsprogs, man, and an editor different?
So I see the proposed archlinux-system group being essentially what base should be.
That is because you see base as the minimal system. So I’ll turn this differently: do you have objections against having, outside of the minimal meta-package described in our proposal, a packages group of “relatively standard” tools, that is purposed at beginner wanting to have only one simple pacstrap command to issue in order to get started? Or put it yet another way: outside of this base group, does our proposal of a minimal metapackage suits you? If so, why does it matter to you that there is also a base group, provided the name is not subject to confusion, that has this metapackage plus other tools (that e.g. people coming from random other distro would expect to have at hand from the start), knowing that you would likely have almost no interactions with this group? If not, then I’m even more importantly waiting for your comments. I’m genuinely interested in your point of view on those questions, maybe they are some inconveniences I don’t see but you do. Regards, Bruno