On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 08:10:57PM +0200, Maarten de Vries wrote:
I would say an editor is part of the bare minimum for any system. You
can't do much on a system without an editor (of course you can still edit
files using some basic tools that don't qualify as editors, but that's
besides the
This may just be my personal opinion, but I have always thought that
`base` was supposed to be the absolute bare minimum to have a bootable
installation. From that view, it makes sense that a few very small
editors made sense in `base` back when Arch wasn't net-install only.
Now, however, since
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:51:10 +0200
Neven Sajko nsa...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that wpa_supplicant probably should not be in base, but
it's worth mentioning that base already has many packages not useful
to a lot of people - I for example don't have any of these installed:
dhcpcd jfsutils
On 25 April 2015 at 19:36, Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@rocketmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:51:10 +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
nano
IMO nano should be part of base. Other editors might have advantages
over nano, but to set up config files, it's on of the most easiest to
use editors. It's
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:51:10 +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
nano
IMO nano should be part of base. Other editors might have advantages
over nano, but to set up config files, it's on of the most easiest to
use editors. It's my default editor, because you don't get a tendonitis
and you don't need to
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 23:55:32 +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
On 25 April 2015 at 19:36, Ralf Mardorf ralf.mard...@rocketmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:51:10 +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
nano
IMO nano should be part of base. Other editors might have advantages
over nano, but to set up config
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:59:30 -0500, Sam Stuewe wrote:
Honestly, I think an idea world would put pacman, linux, systemd, bash,
a few bootloaders, efi-related utilities and their dependencies in
`base` and essentially nothing else.
I guess _core_ should be similar to FreeBSD's world, including the
On 25 April 2015 at 19:59, Sam Stuewe halosgh...@archlinux.info wrote:
This may just be my personal opinion, but I have always thought that
`base` was supposed to be the absolute bare minimum to have a bootable
installation. From that view, it makes sense that a few very small
editors made
On 25 April 2015 at 20:18, Sam Stuewe halosgh...@archlinux.info wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 08:10:57PM +0200, Maarten de Vries wrote:
I would say an editor is part of the bare minimum for any system. You
can't do much on a system without an editor (of course you can still edit
files
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 10:01:57 +0200, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
[snip] The libvpx.so symbolic link [snip] is not needed in
runtime.
Thank you :).
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 3:03 AM, Maximilian Kaul archli...@maxkaul.de wrote:
So I checked in a terminal:
$ which exiftool
/usr/bin/vendor_perl/exiftool
$ echo $PATH
.../usr/bin/vendor_perl...
BUT
if I put the following code in a file
#!/bin/sh
env /tmp/env
and execute it via GNOME
/etc/environment is an option. This is used by pam_env, and applies to
all PAM-authenticated sessions.
However /etc/profile.d is used by most DEs. Did you export PATH?
On 2015年04月25日 09:03, Maximilian Kaul wrote:
Hello list,
I'm currently experiencing something weird on a (less than
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:06 AM, Ralf Mardorf
ralf.mard...@rocketmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 06:41:27 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:56:56 +0300, Jesse Jaara wrote:
What you need to do is to create a custom package for the specific
version of libvpx that doesn't
I strongly disagree. wpa_supplicant is pretty huge and unnecessary for
many people
I for one have a couple of installations without wireless connections at
all..
Hi
I recently installed archlinux over the air (wifi) and after a reboot I
realizied sh**t you forgot to install wpa_supplicant to get connect to
the world (over wifi / wpa/wpa2) and install more packages. So I had to
restart, boot to the live system, mount the whole crypt stuff,
(arch-chroot)
In my opinion wpa_supplicant is an important tool, so is it possible to
add it to the group 'base'?
I strongly disagree. wpa_supplicant is pretty huge and unnecessary for
many people, and it also introduces a large additional surface area for
exploits.
Bennett
--
GPG fingerprint: 871F 1047
I agree that wpa_supplicant probably should not be in base, but
it's worth mentioning that base already has many packages not useful
to a lot of people - I for example don't have any of these installed:
dhcpcd jfsutils reiserfstools xfsprogs cryptsetup lvm2 mdadm nano netctl
On 25.04.2015 17:51, Neven Sajko wrote:
I agree that wpa_supplicant probably should not be in base, but
it's worth mentioning that base already has many packages not useful
to a lot of people - I for example don't have any of these installed:
dhcpcd jfsutils reiserfstools xfsprogs cryptsetup
18 matches
Mail list logo
