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:
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
Maybe it's my reading comprehension failing me but I also don't really understand the point of base-system, or rather why the base group can't be simply stripped down to Levente's list.
So they are two aspect to that: 1. From a technical point of view, a group is less convenient than a metapackage if we ever intend to modify the list. So just trimming down the base group wouldn’t do it. 2. Regarding what is more likely the real content of your message, they are already some people that never considered the base group as what must be installed (especially since a group cannot enforce that conveniently because of 1), but as a convenient helper for Arch beginners doing their first install. I, like other, still think the base group could keep this value, while the base-system/arch-system package would fill the role other people intended for base, but in better ways. I, at a personal level, don’t care about a base group that I wouldn’t use at all (just like you or likely any other Arch staff for that regard). But I have to think on a larger scope, and if having this package helps new users getting started with Arch, then I think it’s worth having it. Not because I want Arch to be used by the largest number of people, but because I believe that some of those people will be tomorrow TUs and devs, after becoming more acquainted with Linux and Arch internals thanks to their use of a distro that try to teach them about all this. Would the absence of a base group be a too high barrier for some? I don’t know. Maybe not, especially since our wiki is amazing and maybe most installation cases requiring a non base-system/arch-system tool that are currently in base already tells to install this tool. Or maybe not, because those wiki page currently assume that people either have base installed, or know exactly what they are doing? Now my question to both you and Allan (or other that might have the same concern): you seem to agree with our base-system/arch-system proposal, but are wondering about the current base group. Would you actually be bothered by the existence of this group in addition of the *-system/minimal/whatever metapackage and if so why (for instance Gaetan had a relevant concern about the naming, hence the idea or arch-system/minimal —renaming the base group could be doable to though, but would require more work), or is it just that you don’t see a point in keeping it, so why not remove it altogether? In any case, I hope we can address your concerns and move forward with this proposal. Regards, Bruno