[arch-dev-public] definition of the core repo, putting nilfs-utils, btrfs-progs and dosfstools in core

Ionuț Bîru ibiru at archlinux.org
Sat Jan 8 13:38:32 EST 2011

On 12/22/2010 09:26 PM, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 19:14:19 +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
>> I realise I just suggested some pretty radical changes, but in my mind
>> they make a lot of sense.  I hope I didn't miss some obvious
>> downsides (please point them out), I will (and I hope you do too)
>> spend some nights pondering about this.
> I think the core repo and its sign-off policy has proven itself to be a
> good idea. But we could make a little adjustment to our signoff policy
> to solve your filesystem package problem.
> [core]: This contains everything you need to boot up, connect to the
> internet and install additional packages from e.g. [extra]
> base group: A smaller subset of [core] that include packages that
> should be installed on every Arch system.
> base-devel group: Additional packages needed to build our base
> packages. (This group is indeed questionable and one might consider
> moving them to [extra]
> Everything else in core are packages that are not needed by everybody
> but required by some to "boot up, connect to the internet and install
> additional packages"; e.g. file system packages, firmware for your
> wireless card, wireless_tools etc..
> I would suggest to change our policy to this:
> * packages in the base group and its dependencies still need the usual
> two sign-off per architecture
> * sign-offs for all other packages in core are optional; they still
> need to enter testing first, but can be moved to core without any
> sign-off after 3 days (or one week or whatever)

this seems that was missed.



More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list