[arch-dev-public] base group
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).
On 7/11/07, Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych@gmail.com wrote:
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).
I always thought it was a good idea. Actually, I think what I had in mind was not a base "group" but a virtual package named base that depended on the entire thing. The reason for that was so that all of the base packages did not show up as orphans.... actually, wait, this is fixed now that -Qe output is fixed in pacman3.
Either way, I always thought it was a good idea. I know there were arguments against it, I just can't recall any of the reasons.
Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" roman.kyrylych@gmail.com:
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
On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" roman.kyrylych@gmail.com:
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
On 7/11/07, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" roman.kyrylych@gmail.com:
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)."
2007/7/11, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com:
On 7/11/07, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" roman.kyrylych@gmail.com:
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? ;-)
On 7/18/07, Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych@gmail.com wrote:
2007/7/11, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com:
On 7/11/07, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" roman.kyrylych@gmail.com:
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?
-Dan
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 11:16:39PM -0400, Dan McGee wrote:
On 7/18/07, Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych@gmail.com wrote:
2007/7/11, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com:
On 7/11/07, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" roman.kyrylych@gmail.com:
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
2007/8/21, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com:
On 7/18/07, Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych@gmail.com wrote:
2007/7/11, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com:
On 7/11/07, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" roman.kyrylych@gmail.com:
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 jason@archlinux.org:
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.
On 8/21/07, Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych@gmail.com wrote:
2007/8/21, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com:
On 7/18/07, Roman Kyrylych roman.kyrylych@gmail.com wrote:
2007/7/11, Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin@gmail.com:
On 7/11/07, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke a.radke@arcor.de wrote:
Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300 schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" roman.kyrylych@gmail.com:
> 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 jason@archlinux.org:
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
On 8/21/07, Dan McGee dpmcgee@gmail.com wrote:
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 was wondering who this was going to be. No surprises that it was Dan. I see a lot of the discuss-it-until-it-dies mentality as of late.
I guess I'm just trying to send a giant "Thanks" out to Dan there.
Cheers, Aaron
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Andreas Radke
-
Dan McGee
-
Jason Chu
-
Roman Kyrylych