[SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

x-yuri · 2023-02-21 01:46:58

According to the news, if I installed the base-devel package group prior to 2023-02-12, I should explicitly reinstall it. Is there a way to confirm whether I installed the group if I don't remember? The consequences are supposedly that the corresponding packages won't be updated until I do that (if I installed the group prior to 2023-02-12)?

Last edited by x-yuri (2023-02-21 08:16:51)

Trilby · 2023-02-21 02:14:06

x-yuri wrote:

I should explicitly reinstall it. Is there a way to confirm whether I installed the group if I don't remember?

It's not really relevant. Just (re)install it and be done with it.

x-yuri wrote:

The consequences are supposedly that the corresponding packages won't be updated until I do that?

"supposedly"? According to who / what? No, any base-devel packages you currently have installed will remain installed and continue to be updated whether you install the meta-package or not. But installing the meta-package will ensure that any future additions to base-devel get pulled in as you update.

mpan · 2023-02-21 02:46:51

base-devel is a metapackage (was group) that depends on (was listing) packages expected to be present if you use makepkg. If you do not use makepkg, you don’t need to worry about those packages.

If you use makepkg, earlier you needed al packages in the base-devel group. Now you need the base-group metapackage. In either case installation is the same.

Dealing with the shift may be done in two ways (assuming you need base-devel!).

The lazy way: just install base-devel, done.

The clean way: before installing base-devel metapackage, list packages in base-devel group (`pacman -Sg base-devel`). For each of them, determine if it was installed with base-devel metapackage, because you explicitly needed it or because it is a dependency. Pacman log may be helpful, if in doubt. For the last two cases keep the packages. For the first case remove them. Then install base-devel metapackage. The entire process should be done in one sitting to avoid causing disorder.

The difference between those approaches is: with the lazy approach you will have a bunch of explicitly installed packages, which you do not really need. The clean way does a complete transition from a group to a metapackage, leaving the system in a tidy state.

Either will work just fine — it’s a matter of taste and how you prefer to maintain your system.

Trilby · 2023-02-21 02:59:25

Even for "the clean way" there's no reason to remove anything. Install the base-devel meta-package, then check the dependencies for any that you do not need to be "explicit" and just set their install reason to --asdeps

mpan · 2023-02-21 22:32:11

If marking with --asdeps instead of uninstalling unneeded packages, one has to compare contents of the base-devel group with the dependencies of the base-devel metapackage.

The package set is not the same anymore. When I write this message, the metapackage installs a superset of the group, so at 2023-02-21 22:32 UTC this will work without additional checks. But that may change even in a few minutes.

Trilby · 2023-02-21 22:52:40

No, it'd work anytime. What the metapackage depends on or doesn't is irrelevant to that.

Mark all the base-devel group packages --asdeps, install the base-devel meta-package, and then clean up any orphans. I really doesn't matter if the meta-package is a superset, subset, or completely different set of packages from the group.

mpan · 2023-02-22 06:15:31

Doing that will indeed circumvent the problem I described, but it will re-introduce the problem of removing packages, which were intentionally installed as explicit, but not with base-devel group.

Trilby · 2023-02-22 12:53:29

Sorry, I was using a bit of shorthand. The first step would be - as already established and aggreed upon - to mark all the base-devel group packages except those you explitily want to keep --asdeps.

My reply to your suggestion was only to change the recommendation to needlessly remove any packages as that step should rather be to mark them --asdeps. All else would be as you described.

Last edited by Trilby (2023-02-22 13:24:50)

x-yuri · 2023-05-16 02:24:59

I just run into it again, and decided that it makes sense to share a way to list explicitly installed packages from base-devel:

$ comm -1 -2 <(pacman -Si base-devel | grep '^Depends On' | sed -E 's/[^:]+: *//; s/ +/\n/g') <(pacman -Qeq | sort)

and mark them --asdeps:

$ pacman -D --asdeps ...

Head_on_a_Stick · 2023-05-16 08:16:01

Or remove the base-devel package and any dependencies not needed for the normal use of the system and instead rely on a clean chroot or the OBS for building AUR packages.

Arch Linux

#1 2023-02-21 01:46:58

[SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

#2 2023-02-21 02:14:06

Re: [SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

#3 2023-02-21 02:46:51

Re: [SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

#4 2023-02-21 02:59:25

Re: [SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

#5 2023-02-21 22:32:11

Re: [SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

#6 2023-02-21 22:52:40

Re: [SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

#7 2023-02-22 06:15:31

Re: [SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

#8 2023-02-22 12:53:29

Re: [SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

#9 2023-05-16 02:24:59

Re: [SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

#10 2023-05-16 08:16:01

Re: [SOLVED] Should I upgrade base-devel?

Board footer