On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:18, Hubert Grzeskowiak > <arch-general-ml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> i like the idea. what would be the disadvantages, Daenyth? > I just think it's very ugly "solution". IMO, the current behavior is > fine. Keep it elegant. > I agree... Dan made this split to make things easy. Renaming the package and adding a group or a metapackage is not easy and obvious. While pacman may run fine without a mirrorlist, the pacman shipped with ArchLinux does not, by default. The hard dep makes complete sense. I imagine Dan feels similar. Anyone is welcome to rebuild pacman via abs if they feel that the defaults we ship are inappropriate
