On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Allan McRae<allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Roman Kyrylych wrote: >> >> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 16:41, Dan McGee<dpmcgee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Am Sonntag 31 Mai 2009 14:14:48 schrieb Pierre Schmitz: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If everything is OK we can move both to core and remove lzma-utils from >>>>> extra. >>>>> >>>> >>>> tpowa just asked me but I am not sure about it: Should cz-utils be part >>>> of the >>>> base group? It'll be installed anyway because libarchive depends on it. >>>> O the >>>> other hand we might want to have a base group which does not depend on >>>> anything which is not a group member. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, it should. When I originally asked about adding lzma support, we >>> brought up the fact that it would have to be in the base group. >>> >> >> Hm, I don't really see a reason for this, can you explain the reason for >> me? >> Here's my logic: >> a group should not be required to have all dependencies in a group, >> reason: when installing a group pacman installs all packages as >> 'explicitly installed' >> which makes it harder to find no-more-needed dependency in future. >> Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, since I could forgot something >> about >> pacman while being inactive for so long time. >> > > I agree. It would also make the list of "base" and "base-devel" packages to > select from in the installer much smaller. > This reminds me of my comment http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12890#comment43722 with pacman. I dont know if this would make things more complex (from a packager point of view for the most part ) but it will certainly make the list smaller. Please, if any developers feel like moving towards this, take part in the discussion, or even start moving towards this. I dont know if have discussed any of these in the private list, etc. -- Greg
