On 28-04-2015 21:39, Guus Snijders wrote:
> Op 28 apr. 2015 21:04 schreef "Bardur Arantsson" :
>>
>> On 28-04-2015 20:39, Daniel Micay wrote:
People forget vi(1) is part of POSIX so required on "systems that both
support the User Portability Utilities option and define the
POSIX2_CHA
Op 28 apr. 2015 21:04 schreef "Bardur Arantsson" :
>
> On 28-04-2015 20:39, Daniel Micay wrote:
> >> People forget vi(1) is part of POSIX so required on "systems that both
> >> support the User Portability Utilities option and define the
> >> POSIX2_CHAR_TERM symbol." [
http://pubs.opengroup.org/o
On 28-04-2015 20:39, Daniel Micay wrote:
>> People forget vi(1) is part of POSIX so required on "systems that both
>> support the User Portability Utilities option and define the
>> POSIX2_CHAR_TERM symbol." [http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
>> ]
>>
>> The former is probably a good
> People forget vi(1) is part of POSIX so required on "systems that both
> support the User Portability Utilities option and define the
> POSIX2_CHAR_TERM symbol." [http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
> ]
>
> The former is probably a good idea, seeing as the User Portability
> Utilit
thanks :)
It's only ONE damn tool to make all users happy. And some of them bad,
because wpa_supplicant has some vulnerabilities.
But its only one tool, everything you forgot to install on the live
medium can installed afterwards, but not wpa_supplicant or other missing
network tools.
cheers
On
And wpa_supplicant is an opt-depend of netctl, but maybe it should
indicate it's needed for X802.1x as it currently only says it's for
wireless networking.
--
GPG Key: 8387FCC3
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Paladin wrote:
> On , LoneVVolf wrote:
>> Given that dhcpcd & iproute2 are already in
On , LoneVVolf wrote:
> Given that dhcpcd & iproute2 are already in the base group, wired networking
> is already supported by
> installing base.
Technical note: It's not enough on all wired networks, X802.1x needs
wpa_supplicant. I forget it almost always I reinstall one of my
machines..
P.
--
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Sam Stuewe
wrote:
> This may just be my personal opinion, but I have always thought that
> `base` was supposed to be the absolute bare minimum to have a bootable
> installation. From that view, it makes sense that a few very small
> editors made sense in `base` ba
On 28-04-15 16:35, Jeremy O'Brien wrote:
I'll reserve my opinions on including wpa_supplicant in base, but I feel
that it at least deserves a mention in the Arch Installation Guide. It's
strange to me that the installer has better networking support than the
base system. I've installed Arch on 5
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015, at 07:13, Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
> On 28 April 2015 at 05:21, H8H wrote:
> > Don't get me wrong, but it is annoying to configure the whole wirless
> > stuff and netctl just said, STOP! There is ONE missing dependency:
> > wpa_supplicant. ONLY ONE PACKAGE I MISSED TO REACH
On 28 April 2015 at 05:21, H8H wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, but it is annoying to configure the whole wirless
> stuff and netctl just said, STOP! There is ONE missing dependency:
> wpa_supplicant. ONLY ONE PACKAGE I MISSED TO REACH THE WORLD :-(
You are given the freedom to choose what to install
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Christian Demsar
wrote:
> I agree that the base group should be as minimal as is realistic, but I
> think cryptsetup belongs in base. FDE should be standard install
> procedure since most modern x86_64 processors have hardware accelerated
> AES (minimal overhead).
On 04/27/2015 06:02 PM, LoneVVolf wrote:
> Are 2 packages really worth it to create an additonal group or do you
> propose to remove dhcpcd & iproute2 from base to this new group ?
No two packages are not worth to create an additional group, but if the
base group should be as minimal as possible t
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015, at 02:46 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:32 AM, William Hatch
> wrote:
> Why automatically assume everyone needs RAID, or encrypted
> filesystems? I am fine with keeping in tools for not-so-common
> filesystem types, though I will still remove them myself.
On 27-04-15 08:32, William Hatch wrote:
I second the motion for a network group. I've been bitten by a lack of
wpa_supplicant on a laptop install more than once.
Given that dhcpcd & iproute2 are already in the base group, wired
networking is already supported by
installing base.
For basic wl
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:32 AM, William Hatch wrote:
> I second the motion for a network group. I've been bitten by a lack of
> wpa_supplicant on a laptop install more than once.
>
I third the motion, and ask additionally that base not include "good to
have" things that aren't actually necessar
I second the motion for a network group. I've been bitten by a lack of
wpa_supplicant on a laptop install more than once.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> Right. I'm not actually arguing for wpa_supplicant's inclusion in
> `base`, just pointing out that things like, `netctl` (and imho, the
> variety of text editors) might not make sense either if we assume `base`
> is exclusively for a bootable install.
I totally agree to you Sam, if this is what
On 26 April 2015 at 00:24, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 23:55:32 +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
>>On 25 April 2015 at 19:36, Ralf Mardorf
>>wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:51:10 +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
nano
>>>
>>> IMO nano should be part of base. Other editors might have advanta
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 23:55:32 +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
>On 25 April 2015 at 19:36, Ralf Mardorf
>wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:51:10 +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
>>> nano
>>
>> IMO nano should be part of base. Other editors might have advantages
>> over nano, but to set up config files, it's on of
On 25 April 2015 at 19:36, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:51:10 +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
>> nano
>
> IMO nano should be part of base. Other editors might have advantages
> over nano, but to set up config files, it's on of the most easiest to
> use editors. It's my default editor, be
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 12:59:30 -0500, Sam Stuewe wrote:
>Honestly, I think an idea world would put pacman, linux, systemd, bash,
>a few bootloaders, efi-related utilities and their dependencies in
>`base` and essentially nothing else.
I guess _core_ should be similar to FreeBSD's world, including "t
On 25 April 2015 at 20:18, Sam Stuewe wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 08:10:57PM +0200, Maarten de Vries wrote:
> > I would say an editor is part of the bare minimum for any system. You
> > can't do much on a system without an editor (of course you can still edit
> > files using some basic tools
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 08:10:57PM +0200, Maarten de Vries wrote:
> I would say an editor is part of the bare minimum for any system. You
> can't do much on a system without an editor (of course you can still edit
> files using some basic tools that don't qualify as editors, but that's
> besides th
On 25 April 2015 at 19:59, Sam Stuewe wrote:
> This may just be my personal opinion, but I have always thought that
> `base` was supposed to be the absolute bare minimum to have a bootable
> installation. From that view, it makes sense that a few very small
> editors made sense in `base` back whe
This may just be my personal opinion, but I have always thought that
`base` was supposed to be the absolute bare minimum to have a bootable
installation. From that view, it makes sense that a few very small
editors made sense in `base` back when Arch wasn't net-install only.
Now, however, since Ar
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:51:10 +0200, Neven Sajko wrote:
> nano
IMO nano should be part of base. Other editors might have advantages
over nano, but to set up config files, it's on of the most easiest to
use editors. It's my default editor, because you don't get a tendonitis
and you don't need to lea
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:51:10 +0200
Neven Sajko wrote:
> I agree that wpa_supplicant probably should not be in base, but
> it's worth mentioning that base already has many packages not useful
> to a lot of people - I for example don't have any of these installed:
> dhcpcd jfsutils reiserfstools xf
On 25.04.2015 17:51, Neven Sajko wrote:
> I agree that wpa_supplicant probably should not be in base, but
> it's worth mentioning that base already has many packages not useful
> to a lot of people - I for example don't have any of these installed:
> dhcpcd jfsutils reiserfstools xfsprogs cryptsetu
I agree that wpa_supplicant probably should not be in base, but
it's worth mentioning that base already has many packages not useful
to a lot of people - I for example don't have any of these installed:
dhcpcd jfsutils reiserfstools xfsprogs cryptsetup lvm2 mdadm nano netctl
>
> I strongly disagree. wpa_supplicant is pretty huge and unnecessary for
> many people
I for one have a couple of installations without wireless connections at
all..
> In my opinion wpa_supplicant is an important tool, so is it possible to
> add it to the group 'base'?
I strongly disagree. wpa_supplicant is pretty huge and unnecessary for
many people, and it also introduces a large additional surface area for
exploits.
Bennett
--
GPG fingerprint: 871F 1047
32 matches
Mail list logo
