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

Eli Schwartz eschwartz at archlinux.org
Thu Sep 14 19:17:13 UTC 2017

On 09/12/2017 03:27 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
> We have discussed this on IRC and this has been a recurring theme over the
> years. 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]
> 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.
> But we must decide on this and make it a policy/standard so things like [1] do
> not happen anymore. That's just one example, there are many others.
> Regards,
> Giancarlo Razzolini
> [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Makepkg&oldid=77357
> [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/55101

And now we are even getting things like
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/55635 which attempt to justify yet more
such bugreports based on the mere fact that this a-d-p thread exists,
while assuming the answer you all decide upon.

This has finally gone from confusing to downright annoying; after all
the times this was discussed here and on arch-general etc. it seems the
community has become interested enough for the self-appointed dependency
police to start campaigning. Hopefully I am wrong...

I really want to see a standard policy for this. Assuming my opinion
holds any weight whatsoever, I'd like to see a base-system (or a
trimmed-down base) in preference to adding dependencies like glibc/bash
to the vast majority of packages...
I also agree that a metapackage is nicer than a group. If we are going
to stick to an official policy for a base system, people should not be
able to remove parts on a whim or neglect parts that become part of the
base system when the next initscripts-to-systemd migration or whatever
happens (and then complain that things break).

Eli Schwartz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20170914/11f4f4af/attachment.asc>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list