On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:31:47 +0200 Pierre Chapuis <catwell@archlinux.us> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 16:58:00 +0200, Dieter Plaetinck <dieter@plaetinck.be> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 16:46:33 +0200 Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
I don't think that nilfs-utils should be moved to the base group. I agree with moving it to [core] but not to base, because base is assumed to be installed on every computer and packages in the base group are usually not listed in the depends array of a PKGBUILD.
On the contrary I think there could be some other file system tools like jfsutils, lvm2 and xfsprogs be removed from the base group (not from [core]).
I think this explanation makes sense. I just found this back: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Base_Cleanup So indeed, it seems like the goal is to remove all non-essential things (reiserfs, xfs, ..) from base.
Just for information, the opposite point of view recently came up on the suckless mailing-list: http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1007/5256.html
I prefer Arch's approach but it is probably true that a large base system reduces the workload of package maintainers.
I don't think packaging becomes much harder when you remove optional filesystems and configuration tools from base. Dieter