Re: [arch-general] Why irrelevant updates?

2015-05-12 Thread Doug Newgard
On Wed, 13 May 2015 02:27:14 -0400 Daniel Micay wrote: > The base and base-devel groups are installed in the containers used for > building, so it's quite sane to assume they're present as build deps. That hasn't been true for a while now. Build roots, by default, only include base-devel.

Re: [arch-general] Why irrelevant updates?

2015-05-12 Thread Daniel Micay
On 13/05/15 01:12 AM, Vitor Eiji Justus Sakaguti wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote: >> It is what it is. FWIW -- I don't think they are "expected", base is a >> guideline and other packages should not be making assumptions (and usually >> don't). >> >> I think it could

Re: [arch-general] Why irrelevant updates?

2015-05-12 Thread Vitor Eiji Justus Sakaguti
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > It is what it is. FWIW -- I don't think they are "expected", base is a > guideline and other packages should not be making assumptions (and usually > don't). > > I think it could reasonably be expected that one has things like > bash/sed/tar

Re: [arch-general] Why irrelevant updates?

2015-05-12 Thread Eli Schwartz
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: > Okay guys, thanks for the info. > > I didn't know about and hadn't thought about all the packages in the base > group being mandatory (or at least "expected" by other packages). > > > And yes, I find installed automatically, packages for: >

Re: [arch-general] Why irrelevant updates?

2015-05-12 Thread Francis Gerund
Okay guys, thanks for the info. I didn't know about and hadn't thought about all the packages in the base group being mandatory (or at least "expected" by other packages). And yes, I find installed automatically, packages for: -ext -jfs -reiser -xfs and who knows what else . . . Even though I a

Re: [arch-general] Why irrelevant updates?

2015-05-12 Thread Oliver Temlin
On May 13, 2015 12:45:58 AM CEST, Francis Gerund wrote: > Sometimes pacman presents updates that just don't seem to apply to my > system. > > Just one example: sudo pacman -Syyuv presents btrfs-progs, even > though: > > 1) I do not, and have not, used the Btrfs file system with my Arch > setup.

Re: [arch-general] Why irrelevant updates?

2015-05-12 Thread Marshall Neill
Could it be it was installed during installation. I have found reiser, btrfs and journal file programs of which I only use ext4. On 05/12/2015 05:45 PM, Francis Gerund wrote: Sometimes pacman presents updates that just don't seem to apply to my system. Just one example: sudo pacman -Syyuv pr

Re: [arch-general] Why irrelevant updates?

2015-05-12 Thread Scott Lawrence
Hi, pacman will request to update all installed packages. If you think you don't need a certain package, -Rscn it. Not upgrading a package that you nevertheless keep installed is probably a Bad Idea (as you realize). That being said, there's no major disadvantage (disk space issues notwithst

[arch-general] Why irrelevant updates?

2015-05-12 Thread Francis Gerund
Sometimes pacman presents updates that just don't seem to apply to my system. Just one example: sudo pacman -Syyuv presents btrfs-progs, even though: 1) I do not, and have not, used the Btrfs file system with my Arch setup. 2) It is "Required by: None" 3) It is "Optional for: None" But I ha