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

Bartłomiej Piotrowski bpiotrowski at archlinux.org
Mon Mar 18 07:39:45 UTC 2019

On 17/03/2019 23.13, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote:
> [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. For my
> part, I thought we had reached consensus with Allan's message:

I asked Bruno to start another round as previous thread is way too long
for people who missed the party to catch up.

> 	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.

The previous discussion doesn't answer (or even if it does, I don't care
to re-read it at this point) if the idea behind the new metapackage is
to be implicit dependency of all packages or just optional thing like
base group always was.

Currently maintainers either put actual dependencies into depends=(),
including glibc if something dynamically links to libc.so or assume that
base is group expected to be present on every installation, which I
wholeheartedly disagree with, because I can just instead use Slackware
if I weren't caring about dependency system.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list