On 10/10/19 9:00 PM, Nero Claudius Drusus via arch-general wrote: > I've been following this discussion and can't see what the actual problem > is. I've installed a new system since the change and the installation doc's > have been updated appropriately. It still works. If you want extra packages > then add them, this, in my opinion, is what Arch is designed to do. I'm not > seeing why extra packages need to be installed based upon personal > preference. There's a community interest in something that helps you install high-profile packages such as: man-db man-pages less diffutils texinfo vi (required by the POSIX User Portability option, commonly assumed to be "the text editor you have even when you don't have anything else") It is also easy, once you have something for that, to also have it prompt you to install: linux (most people's default kernel) linux-firmware These are some pretty reasonable basic assumptions to make, so it's not crazy to think maybe users should be able to have some group of these packages to make sure they don't forget anything. It's especially not obvious that suddenly you need to install the `man` program as well as the core set of linux manpages (containing the 1p section and most of the good stuff in sections 2 & 3). But also texinfo, if you want to be able to read most documentation from GNU projects which don't ship proper manpages. At what point does updated wiki documentation become a giant list of "here's the things 99.9999% of people need but you'll have to install separately after reading some caveat and if you don't, then you will not even be able to type in 'man' to figure out your mistakes while offline"? -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
