[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] [signoff] xz-utils and libarchive-2.7.0-2

[Grigorios Bouzakis]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Allan McRae<allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Roman Kyrylych wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 16:41, Dan McGee<dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am Sonntag 31 Mai 2009 14:14:48 schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If everything is OK we can move both to core and remove lzma-utils from
>>>>> extra.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> tpowa just asked me but I am not sure about it: Should cz-utils be part
>>>> of the
>>>> base group? It'll be installed anyway because libarchive depends on it.
>>>> O the
>>>> other hand we might want to have a base group which does not depend on
>>>> anything which is not a group member.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it should. When I originally asked about adding lzma support, we
>>> brought up the fact that it would have to be in the base group.
>>>
>>
>> Hm, I don't really see a reason for this, can you explain the reason for
>> me?
>> Here's my logic:
>> a group should not be required to have all dependencies in a group,
>> reason: when installing a group pacman installs all packages as
>> 'explicitly installed'
>> which makes it harder to find no-more-needed dependency in future.
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, since I could forgot something
>> about
>> pacman while being inactive for so long time.
>>
>
> I agree.  It would also make the list of "base" and "base-devel" packages to
> select from in the installer much smaller.
>

This reminds me of my comment http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12890#comment43722
with pacman. I dont know if this would make things more complex (from
a packager point
of view for the most part ) but it will certainly make the list smaller.
Please, if any developers feel like moving towards this, take part in
the discussion, or even start
moving towards this.
I dont know if have discussed any of these in the private list, etc.

-- 
Greg