You are not logged in.

#1 2012-12-17 20:56:30

dolby
Member
From: 1992
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1,581

base-devel group additions

I see there is an 'add more to base-devel' todo list https://www.archlinux.org/todolists/#201 listed but i can't find any discussion about this anywhere.
Are packages that's gonna be added to base-devel also be part of base too?
That seems to be the case, since pacman is in the list but since it's assumed that users have at least the base group installed what is the reason of adding those packages to yet another group?
Pacstraping both base and base-devel would just result to installing some packages twice.


There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

Offline

#2 2012-12-17 21:08:17

Xyne
Moderator/TU
Registered: 2008-08-03
Posts: 5,810
Website

Re: base-devel group additions

dolby wrote:

Pacstraping both base and base-devel would just result to installing some packages twice.

Huh?

pacman -S base base-devel
pacman -S base
pacman -S --needed base-devel

The base group is not required and you cannot assume that everyone has the full base group installed. It makes sense to have a separate group that users can install on a minimal system (or chroot) to ensure that building works.

Then again, I think base-devel is a bit bloaty and a lazy way to get around proper use of the makedepends array in the PKGBUILD.

Offline

#3 2012-12-17 21:37:04

dolby
Member
From: 1992
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1,581

Re: base-devel group additions

Xyne wrote:
dolby wrote:

Pacstraping both base and base-devel would just result to installing some packages twice.

Huh?

pacman -S base base-devel
pacman -S base
pacman -S --needed base-devel

Huh?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Of … ase_system


Xyne wrote:

The base group is not required and you cannot assume that everyone has the full base group installed.

I guess that is why dependencies from base are listed in build scripts. Oh wait!

Xyne wrote:

It makes sense to have a separate group that users can install on a minimal system (or chroot) to ensure that building works.

Maybe make another group targetted at chroots then?


There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

Offline

#4 2012-12-17 21:43:15

Xyne
Moderator/TU
Registered: 2008-08-03
Posts: 5,810
Website

Re: base-devel group additions

s/pacman/pacstrap/

The point is that when installing both groups simultaneously or with separately with the "--needed" option, nothing gets installed twice.


As for dependencies in base, they should be listed (imo at least). As as I said, laziness and sloppiness are often mistaken for simplicity.

Offline

#5 2012-12-17 21:51:59

dolby
Member
From: 1992
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1,581

Re: base-devel group additions

Xyne wrote:

As for dependencies in base, they should be listed (imo at least).

I agree on this too but this is not the way things work at least right now.

Xynes wrote:

laziness and sloppiness are often mistaken for simplicity.

+10000


There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

Offline

#6 2012-12-17 23:51:08

Allan
is always right
From: Brisbane, AU
Registered: 2007-06-09
Posts: 10,467
Website

Re: base-devel group additions

The idea of adding those packages to base-devel is to get rid of a lot of crap that is unneeded in our build chroots.  Only packages in base-devel will be installed.

Offline

#7 2012-12-18 18:49:28

Jristz
Member
From: America/Santiago
Registered: 2011-06-11
Posts: 931

Re: base-devel group additions

and I think for base the btrfs-progs and nlfs-utils
btrfs now have a btrfsck that is the fsck...(and as side note debian have a patch to make btrfsck not fail by the fsck standard options)
and nilfs-utils have a snaptshoting system that you can remount or roll to the last working snapshot


Well, I suppose that this is somekind of signature, no?

Offline

#8 2012-12-19 20:47:26

dolby
Member
From: 1992
Registered: 2006-08-08
Posts: 1,581

Re: base-devel group additions

Jristz wrote:

and I think for base the btrfs-progs and nlfs-utils

I think there are requests for those in flyspray but even if not, its offtopic here. smile


There shouldn't be any reason to learn more editor types than emacs or vi -- mg (1)
[You learn that sarcasm does not often work well in international forums.  That is why we avoid it. -- ewaller (arch linux forum moderator)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB