On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:31:47 +0200 Pierre Chapuis <catwell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 16:58:00 +0200, Dieter Plaetinck > <dieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 16:46:33 +0200 > > Heiko Baums <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> I don't think that nilfs-utils should be moved to the base group. I > >> agree with moving it to [core] but not to base, because base is > >> assumed to be installed on every computer and packages in the base > >> group are usually not listed in the depends array of a PKGBUILD. > >> > >> On the contrary I think there could be some other file system tools > >> like jfsutils, lvm2 and xfsprogs be removed from the base group > >> (not from [core]). > > > > I think this explanation makes sense. I just found this back: > > http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Allan/Base_Cleanup > > So indeed, it seems like the goal is to remove all non-essential > > things (reiserfs, xfs, ..) from base. > > Just for information, the opposite point of view recently came up on > the suckless mailing-list: > http://lists.suckless.org/dev/1007/5256.html > > I prefer Arch's approach but it is probably true that a large base > system reduces the workload of package maintainers. > I don't think packaging becomes much harder when you remove optional filesystems and configuration tools from base. Dieter
