Arch Linux

epheo

Member

Registered: 2017-08-15

Posts: 1

Q about the increasing size of 'base' group

Hi,
I was recently surprised that a 'pacstrap base' now require more than 1G of usable storage.
Total Download Size:   186.62 MiB
Total Installed Size:  759.41 MiB
So it's now failing on any volume < 1G.

I remember a few years back installing the base group within no more than 2 or 3 hundreds MB of usable disk space.

I would like to understand what is taking so many blocks.

https://www.archlinux.org/groups/x86_64/base/

I've summed the installed sizes of the packages here which bring us to roughly 400 Mb.
Does that mean that we have more or less the same amount spent in dependencies ?

- Could I consider creating for example a 'reduced-base' group on a mirror in order to reduce the installation footprint ?
- Am I missing anything / is that normal ?
- Do you think about a more efficient/simple way to reduce it ?

Thanks,
epheo

Last edited by epheo (2017-08-15 15:26:00)

Slithery

Administrator

From: Norfolk, UK

Registered: 2013-12-01

Posts: 5,776

Re: Q about the increasing size of 'base' group

You don't have to install everything in [base], you can use the -i switch with pacstrap and choose which packages to install.

I usually skip any unused filesystem utilities and things like nano, which I never use. I can't see this saving much space though.

---

No, it didn't "fix" anything. It just shifted the brokeness one space to the right. - jasonwryan
Closing -- for deletion; Banning -- for muppetry. - jasonwryan

aur - dotfiles

Scimmia

Fellow

Registered: 2012-09-01

Posts: 11,544

Re: Q about the increasing size of 'base' group

The real way to save space is by redoing the linux and linux-firmware packages. If you don't do that, there's not a lot you can save without crippling things or taking extreme measures.

I remember a few years back installing the base group within no more than 2 or 3 hundreds MB of usable disk space.

I can guarantee it's been many years since a base install only took 2-300 MB, if ever.

Last edited by Scimmia (2017-08-15 15:49:17)

ugjka

Member

From: Latvia

Registered: 2014-04-01

Posts: 1,806

Website

Re: Q about the increasing size of 'base' group

The real issue here is that Arch does not split packages like other distros do, you get the full package. There are no -dev -lib and what not

---

https://ugjka.net
paru > yay | webcord > discord
pacman -S spotify-launcher
mount /dev/disk/by-...

jasonwryan

Anarchist

From: .nz

Registered: 2009-05-09

Posts: 30,424

Website

Re: Q about the increasing size of 'base' group

Not an Installation issue, moving to NC...

---

Arch + dwm   •   Mercurial repos  •   Surfraw

Registered Linux User #482438

eschwartz

Fellow

Registered: 2014-08-08

Posts: 4,097

Re: Q about the increasing size of 'base' group

The real issue here is that Arch does not split packages like other distros do, you get the full package. There are no -dev -lib and what not

If you don't want development headers, it is trivial to add /usr/include to pacman.conf's NoExtract directive. Of course, if you later decide to build some AUR package you will need to figure out which headers to reinstall after switching that back.

---

Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)

Mr.Elendig

#archlinux@freenode channel op

From: The intertubes

Registered: 2004-11-07

Posts: 4,092

Re: Q about the increasing size of 'base' group

Don't use arch if you care about hdd space. We do not optimise for space in any way at all. Many of our packages are built with everything and the kitchensink enabled even though pretty much no one ever use many of the features etc.

As for the base group itself: It should either be cleaned up or expanded by quite a bit. It is somewhat silly how eg reiserfstools is in it, but not the btrfs/f2fs/etc tools, which these days, many more people use.

---

Evil #archlinux@libera.chat channel op and general support dude.
. files on github, Screenshots, Random pics and the rest