I, for one, think this isn’t going far enough. All packages should have explicit dependencies. I want to be able to run pacstrap ./dir nginx and get all the dependencies I need to run nginx inside a structure in dir. This would make arch very useful for chroot, namespaces and cgroups workflows (colloquially named “containerisation”).
The old approach is silly. The complaints about the complexity of arch installs seem unusual in light of the fact that it’s already “difficult” and doesn’t really appear to have gotten any less difficult than it already was. The old base hasn’t been enough for a base system for me (and I assume most people) for years now while missing packages I would consider important and containing a bunch of unnecessary packages which I would happily do without except due to a lack of explicit dependencies I am not sure if my machine will still boot. If you’re worried about this change then there’s nothing stopping anyone from maintaining the far from perfect list of base group packages to install explicitly. — Tomasz Kramkowski >> On 9 Oct 2019, at 22:11, Tinu Weber <tak...@bluewin.ch> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:45:35 -0400, Genes Lists via arch-general wrote: >> My view - be helpful to have a list of packages no longer in base. >> >> A list of what changed is needed so users can add whatever they deem >> appropriate (presumably a kernel is one) to their own personal install >> package and ensure installations proceeed as usual. >> >> So, if somone can provide a complete list of no-longer included packages >> that would be super helpfui so we can all adjust as needed. > > https://web.archive.org/web/20190722121302/https://www.archlinux.org/groups/x86_64/base/
