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

[Gaetan Bisson]

[2019-03-18 08:39:45 +0100] Bartłomiej Piotrowski via arch-dev-public:
> I asked Bruno to start another round as previous thread is way too long
> for people who missed the party to catch up.

So some of us have taken the time to discuss this issue just a month ago
but because it's too much to read for you we must start all over again?

> 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

I'm fine with both but, again, I note that we've been using the second
option for as far back as I can remember, even before you became a TU.
Some people were pushing for sodeps at some point but it did not go far.
If it's not too much to read, have a look at this old thread that
discussed your exact issue:

	https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-January/013256.html

Anyhow.

We currently have a base group that you're not happy with. Levente and
Bruno suggest to update its package list and/or maybe make it a meta-
package. From your perspective that would be no better and no worse than
the current situation, right? So I don't see why you are against this
change but if you are please tell us what concretely you propose we do?

Cheers.

-- 
Gaetan