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

[Bruno Pagani]

Le 12/02/2019 à 19:16, Gaetan Bisson a écrit :
> [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.

We did not read Eli the same way apparently. To me, Eli was answering
what should be in the base group but not in the arch/minimal-system
metapackage. And then I agree with what he listed. So my question is:
given what we propose for the minimal metapackage (see below) and what
Eli listed as being useful in a base group when seeing this one as a
convenient helper, do you still think that keeping the base group is
problematic? If so, then I propose we just move on with removing the
base group and implementing the metapackage, I care much more for
getting this one set up than for keeping base.

> 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.

The list is available in the very first post (by Levente) of this thread. ;)

> When consensus is reached, we adopt this list of packages for
> base and put this definition on the wiki.

As later clarified by Levente, not for base, but for a new metapackage
with a different name to avoid confusion (whether we keep the base group
or not I think).

Regards,
Bruno


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/attachments/20190213/59e325f0/attachment.sig>