On 10/10/19 7:14 AM, Jonathan Steel via arch-general wrote: > I think we should have created a "minimal" group rather than repurposing > the base one. Then as a separate issue to tackle, add "kernel" and "editor" > etc to the base group which would prompt the user to choose, or if > non-interactive install the first listed. Groups don't "depend" on things like virtual provides=(), you tag an actual .pkg.tar.xz with a group and then search for every pkgname that has that group. So I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. But regardless, we very explicitly wanted to *not* use the name "base" for recommendations, because it does not make clear that it is in fact recommendations. So the choices were either get rid of the base group and make a base package, or also get rid of the base group, but make a package named something entirely differently. There is no option on the table for there to continue to be a confusing group named "base". If you're really in love with groups and don't want to see a metapackage then once again we would still need to delete the base group in order to create a "minimal" group, and any group of recommendations would need to be named something like, oh, "base-extras". So, once again, you would not be able to `pacstrap /mnt base`. Some changes were always inevitable. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
