Em setembro 14, 2017 16:17 Eli Schwartz escreveu:
And now we are even getting things like https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/55635 which attempt to justify yet more such bugreports based on the mere fact that this a-d-p thread exists, while assuming the answer you all decide upon.
Now I'm regretting that this was started on arch-devel-public.
This has finally gone from confusing to downright annoying; after all the times this was discussed here and on arch-general etc. it seems the community has become interested enough for the self-appointed dependency police to start campaigning. Hopefully I am wrong...
Their only tool is the bug tracker. This does not give them permission to file a bug for something that does not exist (yet?). For all the other users listening to this, don't open bug requests like that one. Thank you for dealing with those in the meantime Eli and Doug.
I really want to see a standard policy for this. Assuming my opinion holds any weight whatsoever, I'd like to see a base-system (or a trimmed-down base) in preference to adding dependencies like glibc/bash to the vast majority of packages... I also agree that a metapackage is nicer than a group. If we are going to stick to an official policy for a base system, people should not be able to remove parts on a whim or neglect parts that become part of the base system when the next initscripts-to-systemd migration or whatever happens (and then complain that things break).
We have been telling users on the install guide and on the makepkg page for a long time that base is assumed. And some devs/tus list packages on base, but from what I saw, the majority do not. I think this should be fixed by a bare bones "essentials" metapackage and we should get over with this and move on. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini
pgpBTgx1SXVky.pgp
Description: PGP signature
