[arch-dev-public] base group

[Roman Kyrylych]

2007/8/21, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com>:
> On 7/18/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2007/7/11, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> > > On 7/11/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 7/11/07, Andreas Radke <a.radke at arcor.de> wrote:
> > > > > Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:11:37 +0300
> > > > > schrieb "Roman Kyrylych" <roman.kyrylych at 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 at 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.

-- 
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)