This will need checking into by screen reader experts, this change for
probably more than one unknown reason not only broke accessibility, it
made a system that did the grub beep and then had grub go spastic and the
system could do nothing else. I have most of a braille page of pacstrap
commands I
Op vr 11 okt. 2019 17:34 schreef William Bevans via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org>:
> I agree with you, I think having two base packages works well as it will
> help people who want an small container install but also people who just
> want a normal install.
>
People using containers
On 12-10-19 08:40:40 +0530, Ram Kumar via arch-general wrote:
i got only the dependencies list in here
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/any/base/
base is now a metapackage which just lists the dependencies which is
a way to easily install a bunch of packages through base. Before we used
The list of packages contained in earlier base group is given by
https://www.archlinux.org/groups/x86_64/base/ link,
like wise
what are the stuff does the latest base package will install?
i got only the dependencies list in here
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/core/any/base/
On Sat, 12 Oct 20
On 10/11/19 6:10 PM, Daniel Moch via arch-general wrote:
> I see in the archive[1] that these were deleted for not following the
> submission guidelines[2]. I'm not sure how that's the case, unless the
> logic is that since they merely bundle packages in Community that they
> violate rule #1?
>
>
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:15:42PM +0200, Robin Broda via arch-general wrote:
> You've got the explanation in the mail that informed you about the removal
> automatically :)
I see in the archive[1] that these were deleted for not following the
submission guidelines[2]. I'm not sure how that's the
On 10/11/19 9:55 PM, John Crist via arch-general wrote:
> As such, time can be made to contribute, but time can't be given to explain
> why a moderative action was taken and how best to proceed in the future.
>
You've got the explanation in the mail that informed you about the removal
automatica
Thank you. It would be wonderful to be given reasons why. That would help
me contribute in a more acceptable way moving forward, which is ultimately
my personal goal.
As such, time can be made to contribute, but time can't be given to explain
why a moderative action was taken and how best to proce
I agree with you, I think having two base packages works well as it will
help people who want an small container install but also people who just
want a normal install.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 10:31 AM Storm Dragon via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I wonder if there
Howdy,
I wonder if there shouldn't be two base packages. maybe a base-minimal for
containers, and a base like the original. I worry that the new method will be
confusing for people coming to Arch for the first time, and it kind of makes
things a bit more strenuous for the bare metal user.
Of
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:33:51 +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>Hi Ralf,
>
>> An editor is a fundamental tool
>
>Yes, but stepping back a bit... do you accept that neither a text
>editor, or less(1), are required on a minimal install that's just being
>used as a base for producing a specialised instal
Hi Ralf,
> An editor is a fundamental tool
Yes, but stepping back a bit... do you accept that neither a text
editor, or less(1), are required on a minimal install that's just being
used as a base for producing a specialised install for a particular
task, as used in a container?
I'm unclear if yo
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 10:26:19 +0100, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>Hi Eli,
>
>> Off the top of my head:
>>
>> vi
>> vim
>...
>
>I was curious. Others might be interested in the result.
>
>$ expac -S '%m %n' vi vim neovim vis ed emacs acme gedit pluma xed
> \
>>geany leafpad kate nano vscode
Vi no, please. Nano is fine
Greetings
Hi Eli,
> Off the top of my head:
>
> vi
> vim
...
I was curious. Others might be interested in the result.
$ expac -S '%m %n' vi vim neovim vis ed emacs acme gedit pluma xed \
>geany leafpad kate nano vscode atom |
> sort -n
106496 ed
300032 vi
317440 leafpad
10
On Thu, 2019-10-10 at 19:49 -0600, Nero Claudius Drusus via arch-general wrote:
> Let's face the facts. Man is superfluous for most people learning how to
> install Arch, especially since it forces you to have an internet connection
> in order to install.
What do you mean? You have the installatio
Hi,
IMO it's a good idea that the Arch developers want to rework "base",
but IMO the result is a bit overdone. Don't get me wrong, I can live
with the current base package, if the developers like it, it's ok for
me.
However, I do understand that users are surprised that even vi/m is
excluded.
My
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:36 PM Eli Schwartz via arch-general
wrote:
>
> But regardless, we very explicitly wanted to *not* use the name "base"
> for recommendations, because it does not make clear that it is in fact
> recommendations.
>
> So the choices were either get rid of the base group and m
Em outubro 10, 2019 17:06 John Crist via arch-general escreveu:
I've submitted `base-extras` to the AUR at
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/base-extras/ that contains the
missing packages from `base` if someone REALLY wants it.
And I have removed it. Following the same criteria, I've als
I want to clarify that I didn't mean "man" requires an internet connection.
Arch does and uses the wiki.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 7:49 PM Nero Claudius Drusus
wrote:
> Let's face the facts. Man is superfluous for most people learning how to
> install Arch, especially since it forces you to have an
Let's face the facts. Man is superfluous for most people learning how to
install Arch, especially since it forces you to have an internet connection
in order to install.
The wiki installation page so far hasn't included any extras other than the
kernel (at least that I've noticed thus far, please
On 10/10/19 9:00 PM, Nero Claudius Drusus via arch-general wrote:
> I've been following this discussion and can't see what the actual problem
> is. I've installed a new system since the change and the installation doc's
> have been updated appropriately. It still works. If you want extra packages
>
I've been following this discussion and can't see what the actual problem
is. I've installed a new system since the change and the installation doc's
have been updated appropriately. It still works. If you want extra packages
then add them, this, in my opinion, is what Arch is designed to do. I'm n
On 10/10/19 7:01 AM, pete via arch-general wrote:
> Never mind Ed Vi Assemblers yes all very fancyfull
> hows about you just include joe far easier wordstar commands no mess just
> worksthe very first thing i ever do install joe best editor of the lot .
I have never heard of "joe". I ha
I am sorry if this is a repeated/dumb question. What exactly does the base
package have? I.e. if i install only base "pacstrap /mnt base", then what
stuff will i get in it?
Knowing this i can decide what stuff i have to install in addition.
On 10/10/19 7:14 AM, Jonathan Steel via arch-general wrote:
> I think we should have created a "minimal" group rather than repurposing
> the base one. Then as a separate issue to tackle, add "kernel" and "editor"
> etc to the base group which would prompt the user to choose, or if
> non-interactive
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:14 AM Jonathan Steel via arch-general
wrote:
>
> I think we should have created a "minimal" group rather than repurposing
> the base one. Then as a separate issue to tackle, add "kernel" and "editor"
> etc to the base group which would prompt the user to choose, or if
> n
I've submitted `base-extras` to the AUR at
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/base-extras/ that contains the
missing packages from `base` if someone REALLY wants it.
On 10/10/19 10:14 AM, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>> > > Everyone should just learn ed(1). :-)
>> >
>> > ed? They should learn how to edit a text file using assembly
Don't take this the wrong way, but if I have to write my own text editor
in assembly (not to mention an assembler and possibly a linker
Hi Pete,
> > > Everyone should just learn ed(1). :-)
> >
> > ed? They should learn how to edit a text file using assembly
>
> Never mind Ed Vi Assemblers yes all very fancyfull
My ed suggestion wasn't a joke. It's probably the smallest editor to
install. It has a long pedigree, it's in POSI
I think we should have created a "minimal" group rather than repurposing
the base one. Then as a separate issue to tackle, add "kernel" and "editor"
etc to the base group which would prompt the user to choose, or if
non-interactive install the first listed.
--
Jonathan Steel
Trusted User
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:44:08 +0100
Andy Pieters wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 10:41, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> >
> > Hi Greg,
> >
> > > Maybe I'm just old
> > ...
> > > everyone should learn at least a few vi commands
> > ...
> > > I still makes me uncomfortable knowing it isn't instal
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 10:41, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> > Maybe I'm just old
> ...
> > everyone should learn at least a few vi commands
> ...
> > I still makes me uncomfortable knowing it isn't installed by default.
>
> Not old enough! Everyone should just learn ed(1). :-)
>
ed? Th
Hi Greg,
> Maybe I'm just old
...
> everyone should learn at least a few vi commands
...
> I still makes me uncomfortable knowing it isn't installed by default.
Not old enough! Everyone should just learn ed(1). :-)
--
Cheers, Ralph.
Maybe I'm just old but not having a text editor by default in the rootfs
seems wrong. I had a professor once say everyone should learn at least a
few vi commands because "no matter what distro/ flavor of Unix you have to
deal with vi will always be there". I admit one hundred percent that it
doe
El jue., 10 oct. 2019 a las 4:27, Ram Kumar via arch-general
() escribió:
>
> Hi, i am not clear why the base group is being replaced.. i searched in
> wiki and couldnt get a clear idea why. Could anyone plz explain?
Yes. There is a plan to replace all package groups with metapackages?
--
Óscar
> A good explanation in installation page could solve that.
Yeah this is what we need..
Hi, there
I like to say that the idea of having a base and base-extra meta
package instead of previously base group is a great idea. For me Arch
greatest strength is giving the user control and choice over their
system and which software they need to install. Having a meta package
for really essent
Hi, i am not clear why the base group is being replaced.. i searched in
wiki and couldnt get a clear idea why. Could anyone plz explain?
Sounds good to me - do you have a suggested list of packages for
base-extras or at least the list of what was pulled from the old base.
Here's a diff of what was in the `base` group vs what is now in the
`base` metapackage:
$ comm -23 <(pacman -Sgq base | sort) <(expac -S "%D" base | tr -s
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:13:28 -0400
Jude DaShiell wrote:
> One dependency that exists is netctl and dialog. You can't use wifi-menu
> unless dialog is pre-installed and wifi-menu if I'm not much mistaken is a
> part of netctl.
>
>
>
> --
Optional dependencies are a standard part of Arch.
One dependency that exists is netctl and dialog. You can't use wifi-menu
unless dialog is pre-installed and wifi-menu if I'm not much mistaken is a
part of netctl.
--
On 10/9/19 9:39 AM, Ralf Mardorf via arch-general wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:19:38 -0400, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:
>> On 10/9/19 10:11 AM, Tinu Weber wrote:
>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20190722121302/https://www.archlinux.org/groups/x86_64/base/
>>>
>> Perfect - thank you!
> I
I, for one, think this isn’t going far enough. All packages should have
explicit dependencies. I want to be able to run pacstrap ./dir nginx and get
all the dependencies I need to run nginx inside a structure in dir. This would
make arch very useful for chroot, namespaces and cgroups workflows
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:19:38 -0400, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:
>On 10/9/19 10:11 AM, Tinu Weber wrote:
>>
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20190722121302/https://www.archlinux.org/groups/x86_64/base/
>>
>
>Perfect - thank you!
IMO 'reiserfsprogs' is a good pointer for what reason to chan
So, essentially if you want the full previous base group, you'd use
# pacstrap /mnt base cryptsetup device-mapper dhcpcd diffutils
e2fsprogs inetutils jfsutils
less linux linux-firmware logrotate lvm2 man-db man-pages mdadm nano
netctl perl reiserfsprogs s-nail texinfo usbutils vi which xfsprogs
On 10/9/19 10:11 AM, Tinu Weber wrote:
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20190722121302/https://www.archlinux.org/groups/x86_64/base/
>
Perfect - thank you!
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:45:35 -0400, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote:
> My view - be helpful to have a list of packages no longer in base.
>
> A list of what changed is needed so users can add whatever they deem
> appropriate (presumably a kernel is one) to their own personal install
> pack
On 10/9/19 6:15 AM, mar77i via arch-general wrote:
>...What problem are we solving, really?
Problem: - there was a change - but the "diff" is not (obviously)
visible, though I may have not looked in all the right places.
The 'base' package has no history [1] - it came into existence 3 days ago.
Op wo 9 okt. 2019 12:15 schreef mar77i via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org>:
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 12:03 PM, Mike Cloaked via arch-general <
> arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > Possibly intel-ucode would be very useful for many installs as well?
> >
>
> Except for peop
The problem is that reducing the base group to the bare minimum made the
installation of Arch much more complicated for the average or even
moderately experienced user. I am not certain which packages I would even
need to replicate the experience I am used to. A base-extra group would
allow less ex
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 12:03 PM, Mike Cloaked via arch-general
wrote:
>
> Possibly intel-ucode would be very useful for many installs as well?
>
Except for people who need amd-ucode...
For a long time I was under the impression we relied on derivative distros to
dumb down things like sy
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:49 PM Genes Lists via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 10/8/19 4:34 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
>
> > Really, I wish we would do as I'd wanted and transfer the "essential
> > packages" which aren't actually essential and were thus not inc
You can take this one step further and create your own repo to host said
packages. That way you can build aur stuff in one place and deploy it out
to a few machines at once. We have about 4+ arch machines in the house and
this is where we are headed.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:54 PM Genes Lists vi
On 10/8/19 4:34 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> Really, I wish we would do as I'd wanted and transfer the "essential
> packages" which aren't actually essential and were thus not included in
> base.. to a new *group* called "base-extras", which would reflect its
> status as being mere r
The base-extras group really sounds like a great solution. Please
consider this approach!
Obviously, you don't need to re-install Arch too often, but I like to
experiment with various configurations on various machines and I have
gotten used to what is in that base group.
Thanks!
Paul Stoetzer
On 10/7/19 12:02 AM, Marc Ranolfi via arch-general wrote:
>> The `base` group has been replaced by a metapackage of the same name, we
> advise users to install this package (`pacman -Syu base`), as it is
> effectively mandatory from now on.
>
> Please, was this discussed somewhere? I want to know
May I offer a suggestion and you may already be doing thi; its what I do
to create Arch installs customized to my own needs.
Either:
a) Create a simple script with installs a list of packages you want.
Can be as simple as a shell script with a list of commands like:
pacman -S --needed lin
On 10/8/19 1:45 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
> 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.
>>
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
On 10/8/19 2:20 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
> On 10/06/2019 11:22 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general wrote:
>> Yes, this was discussed over the years in several threads. The most recent
>> being [0].
>>
>> Lacking a kernel is mainly for container based environments. And some
>> superfluous
>>
On 10/06/2019 11:22 PM, Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general wrote:
> Yes, this was discussed over the years in several threads. The most recent
> being [0].
>
> Lacking a kernel is mainly for container based environments. And some
> superfluous
> packages were also removed from the group, like a
Right. Thanks guys.
Marc
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 1:22 AM Giancarlo Razzolini via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Em outubro 7, 2019 1:02 Marc Ranolfi via arch-general escreveu:
> >> The `base` group has been replaced by a metapackage of the same name, we
> > advise users to i
Em outubro 7, 2019 1:02 Marc Ranolfi via arch-general escreveu:
The `base` group has been replaced by a metapackage of the same name, we
advise users to install this package (`pacman -Syu base`), as it is
effectively mandatory from now on.
Please, was this discussed somewhere? I want to know th
Hi,
Le 07/10/2019 à 06:02, Marc Ranolfi via arch-general a écrit :
>> The `base` group has been replaced by a metapackage of the same name, we
> advise users to install this package (`pacman -Syu base`), as it is
> effectively mandatory from now on.
>
> Please, was this discussed somewhere?
Yes,
> The `base` group has been replaced by a metapackage of the same name, we
advise users to install this package (`pacman -Syu base`), as it is
effectively mandatory from now on.
Please, was this discussed somewhere? I want to know the details, and
gather what is needed to update the 'Installation
66 matches
Mail list logo
