[arch-dev-public] Proposal: minimal base system

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Tue Feb 12 22:55:27 UTC 2019

On 13/2/19 8:17 am, Levente Polyak via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 2/12/19 7:16 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> [2019-02-12 16:40:08 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
>>> Just in case it wasn’t clear, my answer would have been mostly the same
>>> as Eli’s.
>>> So, Gaetan, Allan and Bartłomiej (or anyone else for that matter), do
>>> you have further comments/questions regarding this, does the existence
>>> of the base group alongside the arch/minimal-system now makes sense or
>>> would you still prefer to go without it?
>> Allan and I have both stated that we don't want to introduce a new group
>> since we believe it would be highly redundant with base.
>> Nothing new has been said since our last messages except Eli's post
>> which argues that the base group is largely inadequate in its current
>> state. This further supports our proposal that base should be improved
>> instead of introducing a new group.
>> So I really don't see what arguments could have changed our minds...
>> It's also strange to me how you can concur with Eli's post without
>> agreeing with our conclusions.
>> To go forward I suggest you propose a clear definition of the perfect
>> "minimal system" group you'd want to have, along with a proposed list of
>> packages. When consensus is reached, we adopt this list of packages for
>> base and put this definition on the wiki.
>> Cheers.
> To make it as short as possible, the idea is not just to strip down the
> base group further but primarily to not use a group in the first place.
> It should be replaced with something that is consistent within itself
> over the whole lifetime of the system.
> Groups are the wrong tool for such a set: you explicitly install all
> those packages so they won't automatically be mark as not-required
> anymore once removed from that group, as well as new additions are not
> consistent during the lifetime of the system.

We are clear about that.  Call it a group or metapackage or whatever,
the objection is having the current base and the new "group" at the same


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list