Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

kenanoney · 2018-11-25 19:18:04

First, let's address what's actually important here..

Is it pronounced ARK, or ARTSH ???

Now...
As an arch linux noob, I thought it at first I would have something similar to "tiny core" but much better, I never really expected to be installing so much with "pacstrap" in the installation process, I was deeply disappointed, but then again, how the **** am I going to run anything if I don't even have things like "ncurses" and the binutils, but...

What would happen if i DIDN'T pacstrap, what programs would I have? I mean, nothing right? can I arbitrarily install individual packages with pacman -S in the root directory like bash to get me started, and wpa_supplicant because I'm that much a noob I don't want to bother with ethernet, plus the cable's too short..

so basically, the noob question is as follows:
If i were to install every package individually using pacman, what are the.... *clears throat*.. ~BARE NECESSITIES, the simple bare necessities, forget about your worr- ok~ that I need to get things rolling.

I'm doing this to understand what every package does, I mean packages were made by different people, so i'm still downloading things like I would if I had any system, I just want to know what every package is without installing it mindlessly just to get the system running

I know ncurses is extremely important, what else?

graysky · 2018-11-25 19:34:44

I recommend you read some wiki pages on the setup. Most of the programs in the 'base' group could be considered bare necessities. The minimal set depends on your use cases.

jasonwryan · 2018-11-25 19:35:58

If you don't know what is important, you install [base]. Everything after that is up to you, based upon your use case and what you consider important.

eschwartz · 2018-11-25 19:38:04

Well, yo won't have much of a bootable system without filesystem, glibc, gcc-libs, systemd, bash, coreutils, util-linux, shadow, the linux kernel and linux-firmware.

pacman itself is required for obvious reasons.

Being without basic, basic, basic tools like sed, awk, grep, tar, man, info, gzip, perl, file, find, less, killall, ps, ip, ping, lsusb, lspci, etc, will be a pretty miserable experience as soon as you try doing anything at all, and are more or less assumed to exist everywhere -- for pretty good reason.

Don't forget at least one editor, nano and vi are pretty standard and also (surprise) pretty small.

You could try getting rid of crypsetup and device-mapper, but systemd requires them...

Wanna get rid of e2fsprogs? Okay, but first, tell us what filesystem you use.

It's unlikely you'll *not* be using dhcpcd, but hey, feel free to get rid of that plus netctl. Go set up your own networking though (and FTR: I dislike netctl a lot).

...

What exactly do you want to remove? Sure, there's some -- a minority -- of things which aren't needed. s-nail, lvm2, mdadm, xfsprogs, jfsutils, reiserfsprogs, inetutils, "licenses"... but what are you saving, exactly, and how are you going to account for packages which assume base is installed and thus don't list dependencies on these fundamental packages?

cds60601 · 2018-11-25 19:44:05

Here's the base that I install to get up and running (I use wifi to install). After that, I start the install of what I want/need

pacstrap /mnt base base-devel

Once the process is complete and you manage to do all the other bits (and after the boot loader etc), before my final reboot to actually get into the system, I run pacman

pacman -S xorg org-server dialog networkmanager wpa_supplicant - Dialog IS required if you intend to use wifi with wifi-menu (assuming your nic is seen by Arch. Also Keep in mind, the programs I listed here are what *I* install - your options may and will vary depending on your needs)

For me, I install additional programs since I want i3 and a login manager:

pacman -S lightdm lightdm-gtk-greeter i3-gaps i3blocks i3status i3lock dmenu

If you want to boot into your DE/WM you will want to do this before a reboot into your system (assuming you installed a WM/DE)
systemctl set-default graphical.target

Once you are in to your newly installed system (with DE/WM) you would then carry on and install whatever you need want.

YMMV - And, this is by no means a comprehensive install process. There IS a flow you ought to follow so you dont miss anything. What I posted, is a snapshot of what I do. And as other have mentioned, the Arch wiki covers the process for the install.

Last edited by cds60601 (2018-11-25 19:56:27)

loqs · 2018-11-25 19:47:36

cds60601 wrote:

Here's the base that I install to get up and running. After that, I start the install of what I want/need
pacstrap /mnt base base-devel
Once the process is complete and you manage to do all the other bits (and after the boot loader etc), before my final reboot to actually get into the system, I run pacman
pacman -S xorg org-server dialog networkmanager wpa_supplicant - this should be enough to allow you to boot into a console-base Arch. dialog IS required if you intend to use wifi at this point with wifi-menu

base-devel xorg-server dialog networkmanager wpa_supplicant are not required to boot to a console.

Last edited by loqs (2018-11-25 19:48:09)

cds60601 · 2018-11-25 19:49:36

That is correct. What I feel is required (in my situation) is wpa_supplicant and dialog since I use wifi to install. Additionally, I prefer to have a WM up and running on initial boot into system. Of course, it comes down to what the user wants and when...

To the Op: Additionally, there are many YouTube vids out that there will walk you through the install. If you are unsure of the process, I suggest watching a few to get an idea of what to expect. Keep in mind - they may not be exactly what you want/need and the may not follow the Arch wiki to the letter, but for reference and if you have time, they are worth watching.

If after all that you are still apprehensive, there are several good Arch (Arch-like) distros that will take much of the "work" out of it for you.
1. Manjaro is one to get you into a WM/DE fast (and while not supported here, will get your feet wet and they do have a good forum)
2. ArchLabs (my personal fav) I find AL somewhere between Arch Linux and Manjaro. Still, some of the "work" has been done for you also.
3. Antergos
4. Arco

I know very little of the last two so I can't speak to the ease of use etc.

Last edited by cds60601 (2018-11-25 20:05:43)

Slithery · 2018-11-25 20:10:50

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 4#p1512824

eschwartz · 2018-11-25 20:15:39

cds60601 wrote:

That is correct. What I feel is required (in my situation) is wpa_supplicant and dialog since I use wifi to install. Additionally, I prefer to have a WM up and running on initial boot into system. Of course, it comes down to what the user wants and when...

So just to be clear, your response to an OP asking "what are the absolutely bare minimum packages where every single package is absolutely vital to boot", is to list your personal preferences when setting up a full-fledged system complete with Desktop Environment, graphical login manager, and a compiler toolchain?

To the Op: Additionally, there are many YouTube vids out that there will walk you through the install. If you are unsure of the process, I suggest watching a few to get an idea of what to expect. Keep in mind - they may not be exactly what you want/need and the may not follow the Arch wiki to the letter, but for reference and if you have time, they are worth watching.

Right, and that's why the *official* stance of the Arch Linux staff is that using a youtube video does not constitute a valid Arch Linux.

If after all that you are still apprehensive, there are several good Arch (Arch-like) distros that will take much of the "work" out of it for you.
1. Manjaro is one to get you into a WM/DE fast (and while not supported here, will get your feet wet and they do have a good forum)
2. ArchLabs (my personal fav) I find AL somewhere between Arch Linux and Manjaro. Still, some of the "work" has been done for you also.
3. Antergos
4. Arco
I know very little of the last two so I can't speak to the ease of use etc.

Why are you randomly dumping a list of other distributions into this thread? Did anyone even remotely mention the idea that the OP might want to "avoid work" or something?

Aside: archlabs is one of the worst possible choices IMNSHO. I'd actually recommend Manjaro over it, and that's... well, that's saying plenty.

2ManyDogs · 2018-11-25 20:16:47

cds60601 wrote:

To the Op: Additionally, there are many YouTube vids out that there will walk you through the install. If you are unsure of the process, I suggest watching a few to get an idea of what to expect. Keep in mind - they may not be exactly what you want/need and the may not follow the Arch wiki to the letter, but for reference and if you have time, they are worth watching.

Please don't recommend youtube videos. They are almost always outdated and/or simply wrong, and they are not supported here.

jasonwryan · 2018-11-25 20:17:11

cds60601 wrote:

there are several good Arch (Arch-like) distros

Nothing in this statement is true.

Trilby · 2018-11-25 20:20:29

kenanoney wrote:

What would happen if i DIDN'T pacstrap, what programs would I have? I mean, nothing right?

Right. If you don't install an operating system, you will not have an operating system. Is this really the question?

There are a lot of packages in the base group that I am happy without (I've removed them) but as noted above, if you don't know what they are, you should install the base group. Some simple removals like unused filesystem are harmless, but if you remove much else you might not be running arch linux.

All that's really needed is a kernel. I'd be happy with a kernel, my customized busybox, a libc (musl preferably), a compiler, and wpa_supplicant. But this would not be arch linux.

(edit: typo)

Last edited by Trilby (2018-11-25 20:26:04)

eschwartz · 2018-11-25 20:22:27

Trilby wrote:

a glibc (musl preferably)

That would be a libc, but not a glibc.

Last edited by eschwartz (2018-11-25 20:22:55)

cds60601 · 2018-11-25 20:24:34

For those that wish to live in a YOU MUST, YOU MUST, YOU MUST sort of world where free thinkers and alternative ideas are not excepted (or even considered) - then by all means....

loqs · 2018-11-25 20:25:18

Arch does have two implicit dependencies to be aware of the base group may be expected to be installed by a package so members of it may not be listed in a packages dependencies.
If you are building a package the base-devel but not the base group is expected to be installed.

jasonwryan · 2018-11-25 20:26:50

cds60601 wrote:

For those that wish to live in a YOU MUST, YOU MUST, YOU MUST sort of world where free thinkers and alternative ideas are not excepted (or even considered) - then by all means....

This presupposes that the free thinking is insightful and/or accurate. What you are posting is neither. If you want to promote spinoffs, do it somewhere else; they are anathema here.

Slithery · 2018-11-25 20:36:26

cds60601 wrote:

For those that wish to live in a post in the Arch Linux forums YOU MUST abide by the forum rules YOU MUST, YOU MUST sort of world where free thinkers and alternative ideas are not excepted (or even considered) - then by all means....

and not just rant on and on and on...

Trilby · 2018-11-25 20:36:55

loqs, your post is contradictory. Are you implying that packagers do not follow the rule for packaging? Are there examples of packages with dependencies on members of the base group but without listing them? That'd be a bug.

eschwartz · 2018-11-25 20:46:27

Trilby wrote:

loqs, your post is contradictory. Are you implying that packagers do not follow the rule for packaging? Are there examples of packages with dependencies on members of the base group but without listing them? That'd be a bug.

Technically that is simply undefined behavior, which according the excellent fellows who write language specifications is an admirable and desired thing...

Anyway, where do you draw the line? Should every package depend on glibc if it contains non-static binaries? Should ever package depend on bash if it contains shellscripts? Should these packages then also have their own unique dependencies on util-linux, coreutils, awk, findutils, grep, sed, gzip, etc.? What about packages which need the systemd package installed in order to handle tmpfiles.d or sysusers.d? (This can be replaced on openrc systems by opensysusers and opentmpfiles...)

The policy thus far has been "we expect base to be installed, if it isn't, then you get to debug what happens when packages you uninstalled are no longer available".

loqs · 2018-11-25 20:47:52

Trilby not sure if there are currently are any packages that do implicitly require base these two bug reports cover the lack of explicit policy https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/56997 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/46831

Trilby · 2018-11-25 20:49:02

That's a bit of a strawman, if something depends on glibc it should list it, unless it already depends on something that itself depends on glibc. Note BASH does list glibc as a dependency.

thorstenhirsch · 2018-11-25 20:52:47

kenanoney wrote:

Is it pronounced ARK, or ARTSH ???

ARTSH.

completely offtopic: When I was looking in the arch wiki I found this:

Officially, the 'Arch' in "Arch Linux" is pronounced /ˈɑrtʃ/ as in an "archer"/bowman, or "arch-nemesis", and not as in "ark" or "archangel".

@native speakers: Really??? You say ARTSH nemesis, but ARK angel? I know english pronunciation is difficult, but come on, it's the same word with the same root (greek) and the same meaning.

Scimmia · 2018-11-25 21:03:16

Trilby wrote:

That's a bit of a strawman, if something depends on glibc it should list it, unless it already depends on something that itself depends on glibc. Note BASH does list glibc as a dependency.

That's my opinion as well, but it's not the opinion of everyone.

Trilby · 2018-11-25 21:18:48

The packaging guidelines suggest dependencies should be listed but makes no exception for the base group. It does - admittedly somewhat vaguely - make an exception for "redundant dependencies" which should not be listed (which I interpret as something depending on BASH not also needing to list glibc as a dependency).

Is the lack of needing base-group packages listed in dependencies documented somewhere?

Arch Linux

#1 2018-11-25 19:18:04

Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#2 2018-11-25 19:34:44

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#3 2018-11-25 19:35:58

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#4 2018-11-25 19:38:04

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#5 2018-11-25 19:44:05

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#6 2018-11-25 19:47:36

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#7 2018-11-25 19:49:36

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#8 2018-11-25 20:10:50

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#9 2018-11-25 20:15:39

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#10 2018-11-25 20:16:47

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#11 2018-11-25 20:17:11

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#12 2018-11-25 20:20:29

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#13 2018-11-25 20:22:27

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#14 2018-11-25 20:24:34

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#15 2018-11-25 20:25:18

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#16 2018-11-25 20:26:50

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#17 2018-11-25 20:36:26

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#18 2018-11-25 20:36:55

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#19 2018-11-25 20:46:27

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#20 2018-11-25 20:47:52

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#21 2018-11-25 20:49:02

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#22 2018-11-25 20:52:47

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#23 2018-11-25 21:03:16

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

#24 2018-11-25 21:18:48

Re: Arch Linux with absolutely NOTHING in it ?

Board footer