Should git be included in the iso by default?

tralph3 · 2021-12-05 23:05:20

Hi! I've been installing Arch a lot lately since I made an install script and I'm trying it out on VMs and some old computers. It works great, but I wonder, why isn't git included by default on the iso?

Every time I boot I need to run reflector to make the downloads bearable, then download git with a partial upgrade, since a full upgrade is unnecessary and doesn't even fit on the live environment (not updating is not an option because it doesn't have a local cache of the mirrors), then I need to clone the repo and install.

All this can be cut down if git was just included in the iso. Many people have their own install scripts, dotfiles even, I think it'd be beneficial to include it. Don't you think?

Trilby · 2021-12-06 00:17:39

tralph3 wrote:

not updating is not an option because it doesn't have a local cache of the mirrors

What does this mean? I gather you are suggesting you can't just `pacman -S git` for some reason. But whatever that reason is, you'll have to describe if you want help. Are you using an old iso such that you get a 404 trying to download the git package in the sync db?

tralph3 wrote:

Many people have their own install scripts, dotfiles even

And why do you need a full clone of a git repository just to download a script? I doubt you will be revising the script and pushing changes from the live environment. You can download content from a git repo without the git binary.

tralph3 wrote:

... dotfiles even

Why on earth would anyone want to clone their dotfiles into the live environment? You know the iso is just an environment from which you build your actual system. You shouldn't be doing any significant work in the live environment. Perhaps you'd prefer a persistent install on a usb that you can work in and also use to install to the host machine.

tralph3 · 2021-12-08 07:03:37

I generally just clone my install script repo which contains a couple of files, not just a sigle installer script, and run it from there. The syntax is easier, you don't need to curl for every file in the repo, and I guess you can just curl the install script which can already include curl commands to get the other files, but it just feels cumbersome. I feel like having git on the iso would be a net benefit.

About the dotfiles.. fair, I do that but once inside the chroot, where I do install git so it's not a problem.

Btw no, I do not need help. This thread is for discussion.

Trilby · 2021-12-08 13:17:44

tralph3 wrote:

Btw no, I do not need help. This thread is for discussion.

And I'm questioning the claims you've presented for disucssion. You said you can't install git. Why can't you? What goes wrong? What errors do you get?

Awebb · 2021-12-08 15:17:45

And along comes the mercurial and subversion user, asking for another 30+ MiB on the medium, each, for a grand total of 120+ MiB. Even with a good compression, that's still 60-100 MiB extra.

If you really see no other way than git to grab your script, installing git into the live environment should usually be fairly simple on a recent ISO. I also suggest a permanent Arch installation on a USB drive with the arch-install-scripts package, if you're really in need of additional tools every time you inatall Arch.

Alternatively, learn a curl based method to grab your stuff.

Slithery · 2021-12-08 15:25:14

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Archiso

Arch Linux

#1 2021-12-05 23:05:20

Should git be included in the iso by default?

#2 2021-12-06 00:17:39

Re: Should git be included in the iso by default?

#3 2021-12-08 07:03:37

Re: Should git be included in the iso by default?

#4 2021-12-08 13:17:44

Re: Should git be included in the iso by default?

#5 2021-12-08 15:17:45

Re: Should git be included in the iso by default?

#6 2021-12-08 15:25:14

Re: Should git be included in the iso by default?

Board footer