Okay guys, thanks for the info. I didn't know about and hadn't thought about all the packages in the base group being mandatory (or at least "expected" by other packages). And yes, I find installed automatically, packages for: -ext -jfs -reiser -xfs and who knows what else . . . Even though I also am only using ext4 (and a swap partition). On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Oliver Temlin <temlin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On May 13, 2015 12:45:58 AM CEST, Francis Gerund <ranrund@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Sometimes pacman presents updates that just don't seem to apply to my > > system. > > > > Just one example: sudo pacman -Syyuv presents btrfs-progs, even > > though: > > > > 1) I do not, and have not, used the Btrfs file system with my Arch > > setup. > > > > 2) It is "Required by: None" > > > > 3) It is "Optional for: None" > > > > But I hate to reject it. After all, there must be some reason it was > > presented . . . right? > Every installed package is updated on your system. Btrfs-progs is part of > the base group, which is part of most arch installations. > > > So, if I just say "yes" to all upgrades, won't my system over time get > > weighed down by excess stuff, until it grinds to a halt? > No, since updates rarely ever bring new software to your machine and > cleaning the pacman cache gets rid of the additional storage space as well. > > > Or, if I just make my best guess at what is really need and reject the > > rest, won't I have a Frankenstein system that will eventually break? > You could try doing that, most packages will have the correct dependencies > and complain on a breaking uninstall, but others (usually in community) > just plainly (and fairly in terms of packaging effort) expect that you have > everything installed from the base group. > > > And why, why, why doesn't it just present upgrades appropriate for my > > system? > You have an outdated version of a package installed. It might not even > work when some of its dependencies are newer than itself. > > --Oliver Temlin >
