On 2/12/19 7:16 PM, Gaetan Bisson via arch-dev-public wrote: > [2019-02-12 16:40:08 +0100] Bruno Pagani via arch-dev-public: >> Just in case it wasn’t clear, my answer would have been mostly the same >> as Eli’s. >> >> So, Gaetan, Allan and Bartłomiej (or anyone else for that matter), do >> you have further comments/questions regarding this, does the existence >> of the base group alongside the arch/minimal-system now makes sense or >> would you still prefer to go without it? > > Allan and I have both stated that we don't want to introduce a new group > since we believe it would be highly redundant with base. > > Nothing new has been said since our last messages except Eli's post > which argues that the base group is largely inadequate in its current > state. This further supports our proposal that base should be improved > instead of introducing a new group. > > So I really don't see what arguments could have changed our minds... > It's also strange to me how you can concur with Eli's post without > agreeing with our conclusions. > > To go forward I suggest you propose a clear definition of the perfect > "minimal system" group you'd want to have, along with a proposed list of > packages. When consensus is reached, we adopt this list of packages for > base and put this definition on the wiki. > > Cheers. >
To make it as short as possible, the idea is not just to strip down the base group further but primarily to not use a group in the first place. It should be replaced with something that is consistent within itself over the whole lifetime of the system. Groups are the wrong tool for such a set: you explicitly install all those packages so they won't automatically be mark as not-required anymore once removed from that group, as well as new additions are not consistent during the lifetime of the system. Cheers.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
