On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 9:36 PM Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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". > > (...) Some changes were always inevitable. Ok, I'm convinced. p.s.: nano is _fine_.
