[arch-dev-public] repo reorg

Thomas Bächler thomas at archlinux.org
Wed Jul 11 12:17:39 EDT 2007

Paul Mattal schrieb:
> [core]:
>   installed whenever Arch is installed
>   draws from existing base category
>   minimize size
>   free/unencumbered only
>   stringent review/discussion for changing
> [support]:
>   drivers/utilities needed for installs
>   included on core install cd

Why separate these. We can simply have a "base" and a "support" category
in core and only install the base category by default.

Having separate repos may be no problem in the future, but it is one now.

> [lite]:
>   fits on cd with installer
>   free/unencumbered
>   as much function as we can pack into 1 cd
>   stringent review/discussion for changing
> [full]:
>   everything else
>   this should continue to fit on 1 of some medium (now DVD)

And now we have the same problem we were trying to solve: what belongs
to lite, what to full? Who decides it? Why is package A in full and not
in lite, while package B is? You escape one dilemma by creating a new
one. I don't like it and I don't think there is any way to realize this
in an easy, KISS-like way, as proven by our discussion about current and

People should be encouraged to install from the core cd whenever
possible. If a user can't, then in 90% of the cases he still wants KDE
or GNOME, for which people now use the "full" iso, only to discover that
they aren't there.

Separating lite from full will be much more effort and discussion than

> Nice aspects of this include that people who want a totally free system
> can rely on lite providing that, core can be really small, and people
> can have all the drivers they need at install time.

If people want a "free" system, they simply install stuff that is free
only. I don't think we need to help them in any way. I agree that
separating packages with restrictive licenses from the usual repos (like
andyrtr suggested, a non-free repo), on the other hand, there are
packages that are freely distributable, but not considered free by many
people. (My best example is intel wireless firmware. We can distribute
it on CD and FTP, but it should be in your support repository.) So
someone comes and says "this is not GPL, now I have non-free software on
my computer", but you promised me the lite cd would only have free

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20070711/50f26096/attachment.pgp>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list