[arch-dev-public] systemd - move to base group and expect it to be installed?

Bruno Pagani bruno.n.pagani at gmail.com
Wed Sep 13 15:55:34 UTC 2017

Le 12/09/2017 à 21:27, Giancarlo Razzolini a écrit :

> Em setembro 12, 2017 14:58 Andreas Radke escreveu:
>> New filesystem/systemd packages in testing have changed the way we
>> create system users/groups. That's done now via systemd itself or using
>> a systemd hook. So every package that needs certain user/group existent
>> or certain UID/GID to install its file will depend on systemd to be
>> installed on the system.
>> Check https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/55492 - systemd is now part of
>> base-devel.
>> I think it's not consequent not to move it to base group. It's the only
>> init system we support and therefor should be expected to be installed
>> on every Arch installation from now on. User/group creating packages
>> will need it installed in any way.
>> Opinions?
> Hi Andreas,
> We have discussed this on IRC and this has been a recurring theme over
> the
> years.

So this finally made it to adp one way. Let’s start the official
discussion about it.

> I see two main things that derive from this:
> 1) base is assumed or not? I know some developers don't assume base
> and list
> it on their packages dependencies.
> We have been telling our users that base is assumed since at least
> 2009 [0]

Yes, but in fact most of us do not assume base as installed indeed. Even
Andreas just proved us that he doesn’t have base installed on its system
(at least systemd-sysvcompat is missing). As far as I’m concerned, I
have at least 6 different machines, and none of them have the full base.
Also, it’s not assumed by devtools in contrary to base-devel.

Finally, I would say that the base group, as well as most other groups,
are helpers to get things done at install time. But those should not be

> 2) The second thing that arises from the first is a broader question
> which is
> what do we consider a minimal arch installation?
> If the answer to this question is base, then we certainly *must* have
> systemd
> on it. And we can discuss trimming it down, because I think that base
> has some
> packages that shouldn't be there such as, netctl and dhcpcd (I use both).
> If the answer is not base, then we should have something like a
> base-system
> group which contains the bare minimum, like linux, glibc, pacman,
> systemd and
> its dependencies.

That. We don’t need to list dependencies in the group itself (we don’t
do that for base), especially because you don’t want to track
dependencies changes of systemd also in the group.

Or as per Sebastien idea, we could have a `base` or `arch` or -system
package depending on the required packages. Bonus: you can change what’s
in the minimal installation without having to tell users that this
package is now in the group or this one isn’t anymore, pacman will
handle that. ;)


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 520 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20170913/954fe1f8/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list