[2019-02-12 16:40:08 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
Just in case it wasn’t clear, my answer would have been mostly the same as Eli’s.
So, Gaetan, Allan and Bartłomiej (or anyone else for that matter), do you have further comments/questions regarding this, does the existence of the base group alongside the arch/minimal-system now makes sense or would you still prefer to go without it?
Allan and I have both stated that we don't want to introduce a new group since we believe it would be highly redundant with base. Nothing new has been said since our last messages except Eli's post which argues that the base group is largely inadequate in its current state. This further supports our proposal that base should be improved instead of introducing a new group. So I really don't see what arguments could have changed our minds... It's also strange to me how you can concur with Eli's post without agreeing with our conclusions. To go forward I suggest you propose a clear definition of the perfect "minimal system" group you'd want to have, along with a proposed list of packages. When consensus is reached, we adopt this list of packages for base and put this definition on the wiki. Cheers. -- Gaetan