[arch-general] `base` group replaced by mandatory `base` package - manual intervention required
David C. Rankin
drankinatty at suddenlinkmail.com
Tue Oct 8 18:45:12 UTC 2019
On 10/08/2019 01:33 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> Because this is not about containers. There are tons of things in the
> old base group which I don't want installed on my heavyweight X11
> desktop which is used for media consumption.
> I don't need netct (because networkmanager is love), s-nail (unuseful in
> practice) or vi (symlink to vim) as a baseline fact.
> I don't need cryptsetup or device-mapper if I'm not opting into an
> encrypted filesystem, but this does not matter as I cannot get rid of
> either one due to systemd performing shared library links to
> libcryptsetup.so and therefore also having a depends+=('cryptsetup')
> I do not need mdadm or lvm2, because I don't use RAID or lvm, so why do
> you think my system is unusable without it? Note: in practice, both are
> required by libblockdev, which means if you use udisks2 you have both
> installed anyway.
As long at it passes the Allan test, then so be it. I do use mdadm, netctl,
s-nail (mailx) but agree with vim as baseline. The point being no kernel? So
now a 'base' install does not result in a running system? It seems like
forcing the install of `base` + (a list of other packages) just to result in a
bootable system will create more problems then it solves. At least a meta of
'base-legacy' would provide the same install capability. As for the argument
advances that this was due to those looking for a container install, why not
create a 'base-container' or 'base-minimal' and leave the traditional 'base'
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-general