[arch-dev-public] Follow-up on the “Proposal: minimal base system”

Bruno Pagani bruno.n.pagani at gmail.com
Sun Mar 17 22:29:12 UTC 2019

Le 17/03/2019 à 23:13, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public a écrit :
> [2019-03-17 19:07:23 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public:
>> This is a follow-up on the last month discussion about a “minimal base
>> system”.
> Creating a new thread removed from the discussion we had a month ago
> just makes it so much harder for all of us to remember what everyone's
> arguments and counter-arguments were. Please do not do this.

Well, people on IRC advised me to do the exact opposite of what you said
(a.k.a. starting a new thread with a TL;DR of the previous one), so…

> For my
> part, I thought we had reached consensus with Allan's message:
> 	https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2019-February/029471.html
> Summary: You propose what you want your new group to be (metapackage,
>          list of dependencies, etc.) and we adopt this as the new base.
> If that is not satisfactory to you, please reply to that specific
> message and say why. That would have been far more constructive than
> your present message which rehashes some of the discussion we've already
> had and adds new questions I have no idea where you're going with.

I was satisfied with the consensus we reached, but when I asked on IRC
how I should revive the thread so that we move on with that proposal to
an actual implementation, I faced concerns about this proposal from
several persons. The conclusion of our discussions was that we
apparently didn’t even agree on the premises, so that the discussion
should restart at a more fundamental level.

>> From this discussion and parallel ones that happened on IRC,
> Not everyone is awake all the time, which is why decisions are made on
> this very list, not on IRC. New arguments should have been posted to the
> previous thread.

And I hope they will, since I was asked to resend a new e-mail with the
base line-up of the matter at hand.

>> Before going further on any proposal in those directions, I’ve thought
>> it surely requires more input, and not only from the ~10 people at most
>> that already participated in those discussions
> It's probably safe to guess that people who haven't participated so far
> just aren't interesting in participating. Besides, I think you'd have
> more feedback and clear answers to a concrete proposal.

I actually thought the same, but that was before I got more feedback on
IRC (of either people that missed the thread, or had their concerns
unadressed because not understood by others in the way they were meant
to be expressed for instance). I’ll let this thread in this way for some
days on move-on with a concrete proposal depending on the output.

People seem concerned about implicit dependencies at all, and also
wonder about group vs metapackage. All of this is related, for instance
we don’t need a metapackage if we go the no implicit deps way, and I
don’t really care either about the content of the base-whatever in this

In my case, I don’t have strong opinions about implicit deps from a
reasonably small metapackage (i.e. previous proposal) or no implicit
deps at all (someone else proposal), but I’m strongly against transitive
deps in any case. So I’m not decided yet on which proposal to push
forward on.


-------------- 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/20190317/5bc086b2/attachment.sig>

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list