On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke wrote:

Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" :

...

Hi!

IIRC this was mentioned some time ago, but I don't remember why it was not implemented. Why don't we have the "base" package group? IMO it would be nice if user would be able to do pacman -S base to get all base packages installed (e.g. in chroot or when installing from another distro).

the installer recommends to install every pkg of "base". but it's still useful to no install everything if you know what you are doing (deselecting not used filesystem tools, only one editor, no pcmcia and more). a metapkg isn't needed as i cannot see any point where a user later would install it again.

Andy

By far the easiest way to make a chroot would be to have one command, however: pacman --root <path> --dbpath <path> -S base That is where I see the advantage. -Dan

2007/7/11, Aaron Griffin :

On 7/11/07, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" :

...

Hi!

IIRC this was mentioned some time ago, but I don't remember why it was not implemented. Why don't we have the "base" package group? IMO it would be nice if user would be able to do pacman -S base to get all base packages installed (e.g. in chroot or when installing from another distro).

the installer recommends to install every pkg of "base". but it's still useful to no install everything if you know what you are doing (deselecting not used filesystem tools, only one editor, no pcmcia and more). a metapkg isn't needed as i cannot see any point where a user later would install it again.

Andy

By far the easiest way to make a chroot would be to have one command, however: pacman --root <path> --dbpath <path> -S base

That is where I see the advantage.

And what Roman already said in the initial email: "IMO it would be nice if user would be able to do pacman -S base to get all base packages installed (e.g. in chroot or when installing from another distro)."

Sooooo..... Can someone with access to Current please create dummy base package or group? ;-) -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 11:16:39PM -0400, Dan McGee wrote:

On 7/18/07, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

...

2007/7/11, Aaron Griffin :

...

On 7/11/07, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" :

...

Hi!

IIRC this was mentioned some time ago, but I don't remember why it was not implemented. Why don't we have the "base" package group? IMO it would be nice if user would be able to do pacman -S base to get all base packages installed (e.g. in chroot or when installing from another distro).

the installer recommends to install every pkg of "base". but it's still useful to no install everything if you know what you are doing (deselecting not used filesystem tools, only one editor, no pcmcia and more). a metapkg isn't needed as i cannot see any point where a user later would install it again.

Andy

By far the easiest way to make a chroot would be to have one command, however: pacman --root <path> --dbpath <path> -S base

That is where I see the advantage.

And what Roman already said in the initial email: "IMO it would be nice if user would be able to do pacman -S base to get all base packages installed (e.g. in chroot or when installing from another distro)."

Sooooo..... Can someone with access to Current please create dummy base package or group? ;-)

I'm currently making some local changes to implement base as a group. I've thought of one small thing I may want to do, however, and wanted to get a few opinions before I go ahead with it. This involves packages in the base category being split into two groups instead of just one 'base' group: base: acl, attr, bash, libalpm, pacman, e2fsprogs (this is up for debate), etc. base-extra: lilo, jfsutils, mdadm, xfsdump, xfsprogs, etc.

Basically the idea is to seperate general utilities that you absolutely must have from utilities and programs that are a good idea to have, but not everyone may need. This way you have a bit more flexibility in choosing what you want to install when using these groups.

Thoughts?

Isn't this the same sort of thing as base vs. core? One is absolute necessaries and the other is stuff that some people will want depending on their circumstances? Jason

On 8/21/07, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

2007/8/21, Dan McGee :

...

On 7/18/07, Roman Kyrylych wrote:

...

2007/7/11, Aaron Griffin :

...

On 7/11/07, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke wrote:

...

Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" :

> Hi! > > IIRC this was mentioned some time ago, but I don't remember why it was > not implemented. > Why don't we have the "base" package group? > IMO it would be nice if user would be able to do pacman -S base to get > all base packages installed (e.g. in chroot or when installing from > another distro). >

the installer recommends to install every pkg of "base". but it's still useful to no install everything if you know what you are doing (deselecting not used filesystem tools, only one editor, no pcmcia and more). a metapkg isn't needed as i cannot see any point where a user later would install it again.

Andy

By far the easiest way to make a chroot would be to have one command, however: pacman --root <path> --dbpath <path> -S base

That is where I see the advantage.

And what Roman already said in the initial email: "IMO it would be nice if user would be able to do pacman -S base to get all base packages installed (e.g. in chroot or when installing from another distro)."

Sooooo..... Can someone with access to Current please create dummy base package or group? ;-)

I'm currently making some local changes to implement base as a group. I've thought of one small thing I may want to do, however, and wanted to get a few opinions before I go ahead with it. This involves packages in the base category being split into two groups instead of just one 'base' group: base: acl, attr, bash, libalpm, pacman, e2fsprogs (this is up for debate), etc. base-extra: lilo, jfsutils, mdadm, xfsdump, xfsprogs, etc.

Basically the idea is to seperate general utilities that you absolutely must have from utilities and programs that are a good idea to have, but not everyone may need. This way you have a bit more flexibility in choosing what you want to install when using these groups.

Thoughts?

I think about base-dev for gcc, automake, autoconf, etc. In future it could be possible to use libgcc as a dependency of most packages that use gcc libraries, and make gcc and stuff optional on everyone's machine. (i.e. I don't want to have gcc and friends on my server where I install only binary packages, or when I want to have tiny Arch system in VirtualBox). But this should be in a new dedicated thread I guess.

2007/8/21, Jason Chu :

...

Isn't this the same sort of thing as base vs. core? One is absolute necessaries and the other is stuff that some people will want depending on their circumstances?

Yes, something like that.

base packages should not be in depends (except for packages in base group itself). base-dev packages should not be in makedepends. base-extra packages - they are just grouped for easy inclusion on install CD.

Instead of worrying about painting the bikeshed here, I just went ahead and gave every package in the base category a group=('base') line for now. This is easy enough to change later. I also thought we didn't do the whole -dev packages thing here at Arch. Either way, sorry for flooding inboxes of those of you on the arch-commits ML. Over 100 changes were needed. -Dan