On 25 April 2015 at 19:59, Sam Stuewe <halosghost@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This may just be my personal opinion, but I have always thought that > `base` was supposed to be the absolute bare minimum to have a bootable > installation. From that view, it makes sense that a few very small > editors made sense in `base` back when Arch wasn't net-install only. > I would say an editor is part of the bare minimum for any system. You can't do much on a system without an editor (of course you can still edit files using some basic tools that don't qualify as editors, but that's besides the point). > Honestly, I think an idea world would put pacman, linux, systemd, bash, > a few bootloaders, efi-related utilities and their dependencies in > `base` and essentially nothing else. > Multiple bootloaders don't really make sense, and there are many bootloaders to choose from. Choosing one to install by default would probably be a very difficult discussion. It would also mean that users might not even be aware of what bootloader they're using and leave them unprepared when it breaks. Having said that, I think it makes perfect sense to have nano and > vim-minimal on the installation media, but I think of “what is on the > installation media” and “what is in `base`” as being two separate > things. > They are two separate things already. The installation media comes with wpa_supplicant for one. Kinds regards, Maarten
