You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
#1 2007-04-14 14:51:29
- aardwolf
- Member
- From: Belgium
- Registered: 2005-07-23
- Posts: 304
Base vs Full
For some reason I haven't been able to find this on the wiki:
What extra packages are there on the Archlinux Full ISO, compared to the Base ISO?
Offline
#2 2007-04-14 14:57:32
- tomk
- Forum Fellow
- From: Ireland
- Registered: 2004-07-21
- Posts: 9,839
Re: Base vs Full
The full ISO provides all packages in the current repo - base provides the packages in the base category within the current repo. Full details at archlinux.org/packages.
Offline
#3 2007-04-14 15:03:19
- ozar
- Member
- From: USA
- Registered: 2005-02-18
- Posts: 1,686
Re: Base vs Full
I like doing just the base system, then installing only what I want/need. Keeps a clean, minimal system that way.
oz
Offline
#4 2007-04-14 15:20:33
- heathen
- Member
- From: depends on the day...
- Registered: 2007-01-31
- Posts: 45
Re: Base vs Full
yeah, base is good... FTP is great, if you have broadband...
insanity happens...
Offline
#5 2007-05-15 19:49:25
- synthead
- Member
- Registered: 2006-05-09
- Posts: 1,337
Re: Base vs Full
Base really is the best way to go imo. The repos are changing all the time with more up-to-date and refined stuff. If you install the full version, you'll probably update a majority of your packages anyway.
Offline
#6 2007-05-20 14:47:32
- filenox
- Member
- From: Belgium
- Registered: 2007-05-16
- Posts: 117
- Website
Re: Base vs Full
I think the base install more logical because what do you have with programs that you will never use ? 
[b]|Blog[NL/BE]!
Offline
#7 2007-05-20 21:25:12
- swiergot
- Member
- From: Kraków, Poland
- Registered: 2005-01-08
- Posts: 145
Re: Base vs Full
And if you are going to download ISO on the same machine that will have Arch installed, ftp is even better than base.
Offline
Pages: 1