The idea of a "base-extras" package containing the old base packages has already been discussed on arch-dev-public. https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2019-October/029693.html This implies that it's very likely to happen. :-) On Oct 17, 2019, 8:02 AM -0400, arch-general-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, wrote: > Send arch-general mailing list submissions to > arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-general > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > arch-general-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > You can reach the person managing the list at > arch-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of arch-general digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Feature Request: Adding Alternate Base Package Groups to > Installation Media (Ben Pont) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:40:22 -0500 > From: Ben Pont <benpont@xxxxxxxxx> > To: arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Feature Request: Adding Alternate Base Package > Groups to Installation Media > Message-ID: > <CALJ1B=s3APKAFDtUTHSGtehUhSqAAY2EsrcYZ=1oVtDJFWOONA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > With the recent transition from the base package group to the base meta > package, I was wondering whether or not it would be useful to include a > 'base-typical' or 'base-standard' package group to the installation media. > The menu choices during an installation could possible be even more > expansive in its package group options, similar to how RHEL does it via > their 'environment' package groups (e.g. Minimal Install, Compute Node, > Infrastructure Server, GNOME Desktop, etc.). > > For example, each alternative package group could *include* the base meta > package, then add in the additional packages necessary for a particular use > case, (not least of which would be a kernel). The advantage would be that, > after installing the system, users would have the option to cherry pick > *out* unnecessary/unwanted packages from their chosen installation package > group, instead of having to cherry pick packages *into* their system as > would likely be necessary using only the base meta package. It seems like > many new and inexperienced users might become confused when they install a > new system using only the current base meta package and then realizing they > don't have the necessary tools they would normally assume comprises a base > installation (i.e. a kernel, editor, etc.). > > Additionally, 'pkgstats' could (at least temporarily) be included as a > dependency for both the base meta package and any optional base package > groups to get stats on how many users are solely installing the base meta > package versus the optional base package group alternatives. I'm guessing > only a minority of users would choose the base meta package as their sole > installation option, but it would probably be useful to know either way. > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > arch-general mailing list > arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.archlinux.org/listinfo/arch-general > > > ------------------------------ > > End of arch-general Digest, Vol 180, Issue 12 > ********************************************* >
