[arch-dev-public] Cleaning up the base group
Now that our installer installs the whole base group by default, I'd wish it would stick to the essential part. I suggest cleaning this up a bit: Packages that IMO shouldn't be in base: - dialog Nothing depends on it, why do we even need it in core? - hwdetect Nothing uses it, we don't need that in core either - ca-certificates, lzo2, openssl, wpa_supplicant We need those in core, but really not in base - dash Nobody uses it by default, may IMO stay in core, but has no place in base - ppp, rp-pppoe (plus libpcap dep) Only few people need those, leave them in core, but remove from base - tcp_wrappers No base package needs them as far I know, leave in core, remove from base We should also remove all packages from base that only are in there as a dependency of another package and for no other reason, as they will be pulled in when needed anyway. Packages that we should think about: - mdadm - pcmciautils - cryptsetup, lvm2 (plus their deps libgcrypt, libgpg-error, device-mapper) Those are base tools, but not everybody needs them. I'd like to keep them in base, but maybe someone else may disagree. - nano Do we really need another editor in base? Let's leave it in core, remove it from base.
2008/8/29 Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org>:
Now that our installer installs the whole base group by default, I'd wish it would stick to the essential part. I suggest cleaning this up a bit:
Packages that IMO shouldn't be in base: . . . agree.
We should also remove all packages from base that only are in there as a dependency of another package and for no other reason, as they will be pulled in when needed anyway.
Packages that we should think about: - mdadm - pcmciautils - cryptsetup, lvm2 (plus their deps libgcrypt, libgpg-error, device-mapper) Those are base tools, but not everybody needs them. I'd like to keep them in base, but maybe someone else may disagree.
Can be removed from base IMHO (and obviously left in core).
- nano Do we really need another editor in base? YES! I'd rather like to see vim removed from base, than nano.
Let's leave it in core, remove it from base. -1024
-- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
- dialog Nothing depends on it, why do we even need it in core?
Don't we have tools in base which use dialog? The only ones I can think of are the installer and netcfg.
- hwdetect Nothing uses it, we don't need that in core either
Agreed. We don't even use hwdetect for anything anymore. Move to extra.
- ca-certificates, lzo2, openssl, wpa_supplicant We need those in core, but really not in base
Agreed. Let's remove them from base.
- dash Nobody uses it by default, may IMO stay in core, but has no place in base
I agree. In the future when we actually get things that use dash, we can throw it back in base.
- ppp, rp-pppoe (plus libpcap dep) Only few people need those, leave them in core, but remove from base
Like RedShift said, as long as we make sure they're on the ISO, we should be good.
- tcp_wrappers No base package needs them as far I know, leave in core, remove from base
Are you sure about this? Something feels a little wrong about that, but it may just be a gut feeling.
We should also remove all packages from base that only are in there as a dependency of another package and for no other reason, as they will be pulled in when needed anyway.
Hmmm, that's probably a good idea. It would definitely clean up "pacman -Sg base". As long as we ensure they deps still stay in core.
Packages that we should think about: - mdadm - pcmciautils - cryptsetup, lvm2 (plus their deps libgcrypt, libgpg-error, device-mapper) Those are base tools, but not everybody needs them. I'd like to keep them in base, but maybe someone else may disagree.
Hmm, I agree. Another "remove from base, keep on ISO" case
- nano Do we really need another editor in base? Let's leave it in core, remove it from base.
Agreed, but just note that we still want it on the ISO (again, heh)
On 8/29/08, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
- dialog Nothing depends on it, why do we even need it in core?
Don't we have tools in base which use dialog? The only ones I can think of are the installer and netcfg.
Can be set as an optdepends for netcfg, it's only needed for the menu function which not many people use. Same goes for wpa_supplicant and wireless tools - netcfg works without, it just won't connect to wireless networks - only ethernet/ppp (if ppp installed) -- though make sure they're on the install cd. James
Am Freitag 29 August 2008 12:27:50 schrieb Thomas Bächler:
- nano Do we really need another editor in base? Let's leave it in core, remove it from base.
This might end up in a flamwar, but if we have to remove one editor I would vote vor vim and keep nano. vi is a lot more than a simple text editor and installs about 24MB while nano is only about 1140KB. :-) -- Pierre Schmitz Clemens-August-Straße 76 53115 Bonn Telefon 0228 9716608 Mobil 0160 95269831 Jabber pierre@jabber.archlinux.de WWW http://www.archlinux.de
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Am Freitag 29 August 2008 12:27:50 schrieb Thomas Bächler:
- nano Do we really need another editor in base? Let's leave it in core, remove it from base.
This might end up in a flamwar, but if we have to remove one editor I would vote vor vim and keep nano. vi is a lot more than a simple text editor and installs about 24MB while nano is only about 1140KB. :-)
LOL. Let's just keep them both please.
Am Samstag 30 August 2008 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
Am Freitag 29 August 2008 12:27:50 schrieb Thomas Bächler:
- nano Do we really need another editor in base? Let's leave it in core, remove it from base.
This might end up in a flamwar, but if we have to remove one editor I would vote vor vim and keep nano. vi is a lot more than a simple text editor and installs about 24MB while nano is only about 1140KB. :-)
LOL. Let's just keep them both please.
hrm tcp_wrappers, it includes host.deny and allow. Do we need it in base? All tools with network realtionship are not in base anyway like sshd or nfs. Just my 2c about tcp_wrappers greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
participants (6)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
iphitus＠iphitus.org
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tobias Powalowski