[arch-general] Feature Request: Adding Alternate Base Package

[Mohamad Mounir Safadieh]

The idea of a "base-extras" package containing the old base packages has already been discussed on arch-dev-public.

https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2019-October/029693.html

This implies that it's very likely to happen. :-)

On Oct 17, 2019, 8:02 AM -0400, arch-general-request at archlinux.org, wrote:

> Send arch-general mailing list submissions to
>     arch-general at archlinux.org
> 
>     To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>     https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-general
>     or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>     arch-general-request at archlinux.org
> 
>     You can reach the person managing the list at
>     arch-general-owner at archlinux.org
> 
>     When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>     than "Re: Contents of arch-general digest..."
> 
> 
>     Today's Topics:
> 
>     1. Feature Request: Adding Alternate Base Package Groups to
>     Installation Media (Ben Pont)
> 
> 
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     Message: 1
>     Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:40:22 -0500
>     From: Ben Pont <benpont at gmail.com>
>     To: arch-general at archlinux.org
>     Subject: [arch-general] Feature Request: Adding Alternate Base Package
>     Groups to Installation Media
>     Message-ID:
>     <CALJ1B=s3APKAFDtUTHSGtehUhSqAAY2EsrcYZ=1oVtDJFWOONA at mail.gmail.com>
>     Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> 
>     With the recent transition from the base package group to the base meta
>     package, I was wondering whether or not it would be useful to include a
>     'base-typical' or 'base-standard' package group to the installation media.
>     The menu choices during an installation could possible be even more
>     expansive in its package group options, similar to how RHEL does it via
>     their 'environment' package groups (e.g. Minimal Install, Compute Node,
>     Infrastructure Server, GNOME Desktop, etc.).
> 
>     For example, each alternative package group could *include* the base meta
>     package, then add in the additional packages necessary for a particular use
>     case, (not least of which would be a kernel). The advantage would be that,
>     after installing the system, users would have the option to cherry pick
>     *out* unnecessary/unwanted packages from their chosen installation package
>     group, instead of having to cherry pick packages *into* their system as
>     would likely be necessary using only the base meta package. It seems like
>     many new and inexperienced users might become confused when they install a
>     new system using only the current base meta package and then realizing they
>     don't have the necessary tools they would normally assume comprises a base
>     installation (i.e. a kernel, editor, etc.).
> 
>     Additionally, 'pkgstats' could (at least temporarily) be included as a
>     dependency for both the base meta package and any optional base package
>     groups to get stats on how many users are solely installing the base meta
>     package versus the optional base package group alternatives. I'm guessing
>     only a minority of users would choose the base meta package as their sole
>     installation option, but it would probably be useful to know either way.
> 
> 
>     ------------------------------
> 
>     Subject: Digest Footer
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     arch-general mailing list
>     arch-general at archlinux.org
>     https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-general
> 
> 
>     ------------------------------
> 
>     End of arch-general Digest, Vol 180, Issue 12
>     *********************************************
>