On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:

Roman Kyrylych wrote:

...

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 16:41, Dan McGee<dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:

...

Am Sonntag 31 Mai 2009 14:14:48 schrieb Pierre Schmitz:

...

If everything is OK we can move both to core and remove lzma-utils from extra.

tpowa just asked me but I am not sure about it: Should cz-utils be part of the base group? It'll be installed anyway because libarchive depends on it. O the other hand we might want to have a base group which does not depend on anything which is not a group member.

Yes, it should. When I originally asked about adding lzma support, we brought up the fact that it would have to be in the base group.

Hm, I don't really see a reason for this, can you explain the reason for me? Here's my logic: a group should not be required to have all dependencies in a group, reason: when installing a group pacman installs all packages as 'explicitly installed' which makes it harder to find no-more-needed dependency in future. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, since I could forgot something about pacman while being inactive for so long time.

I agree.  It would also make the list of "base" and "base-devel" packages to select from in the installer much smaller.

This reminds me of my comment http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12890#comment43722 with pacman. I dont know if this would make things more complex (from a packager point of view for the most part ) but it will certainly make the list smaller. Please, if any developers feel like moving towards this, take part in the discussion, or even start moving towards this. I dont know if have discussed any of these in the private list, etc. -- Greg