reduce base packages

taylorchu · 2011-04-23 06:24:00

Base packages have some packages that are not really "base". They are not required or needed by most systems.
For example,

cryptsetup - don't need encryption
dash - using bash
oops! e2fsprogs - using ext3 on all partitions
jfsutils
lvm2 - not using LVM
mailx - not sending mail by command line
mdadm - only one harddrive
reiserfsprogs
xfsprogs

...possibly more.

Any developers see this point? Should we check what is really "base" again?

Last edited by taylorchu (2011-04-23 06:30:57)

Allan · 2011-04-23 06:26:56

taylorchu wrote:

e2fsprogs - using ext3 on all partitions

I'd think twice before removing that...

karol · 2011-04-23 07:55:39

dash: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/22483

A lot of people are using cli e-mail in scripts.

dolby · 2011-04-23 08:20:50

taylorchu wrote:

Base packages have some packages that are not really "base". They are not required or needed by most systems.
For example,
cryptsetup - don't need encryption
dash - using bash
oops! e2fsprogs - using ext3 on all partitions
jfsutils
lvm2 - not using LVM
mailx - not sending mail by command line
mdadm - only one harddrive
reiserfsprogs
xfsprogs
...possibly more.
Any developers see this point? Should we check what is really "base" again?

Filesystem support isnt leaving base. And neither is cryptsetup,lvm2 and mdadm. These might not be needed by all users, but their critical for booting many systems. This why many people wanted to have package selection from base back as that wasnt possible for some time.
Like Karol said there is already a FR for dash, as well as ppp and wpa_supplicant.
Only basic networking support should be in base. The rest should/could be in different networking groups.
From the ones you listed, excluding the above just leaves heirloom-mailx which is defined by POSIX
If this really interests you see the discussion here

mundane · 2011-04-23 08:26:04

Base packages are already pretty frugal.

If we really wanted to strip it out, well you don't really need syslog, usbutils, findutils, tcp_wrappers, logrotate, diffutils...

cron jobs essential? Don't need dcron

let's assume everyone is using regular ethernet/broadband... don't need pcmciautils, ppp, rp-pppoe...

Only need one editor... don't need nano

Man pages? don't need those.

And now we have a very stripped out base system, but to what benefit? I saved a few MB from my TB hard drive It's not hard to go through and deselect ones you don't need if you really need the space (e.g. live cd). I think the point of the base group is that they are critical on many systems and life is indeed more difficult if you strip out any of these packages. If the Arch installer offers to use XFS as a filesystem, I would expect xfsprogs to be in the base group

Last edited by mundane (2011-04-23 08:27:33)

Allan · 2011-04-23 08:28:07

dolby wrote:

Filesystem support isnt leaving base.

I would not be so sure... I believe the latest test installers are smart enough to ensure the appropriate filesystem support package is always installed. Same with packages needed for rain and lvm. So these could be removed from base in the future.

For the record, here are the base packages that I do not have installed:

Targets (11): mdadm-3.2.1-2  vi-1:050325-1  xfsprogs-3.1.5-1
              cryptsetup-1.2.0-1  dash-0.5.6.1-2  heirloom-mailx-12.5-1
              jfsutils-1.1.14-2  nano-2.2.6-1  pacman-3.5.2-1
              reiserfsprogs-3.6.21-3  rp-pppoe-3.10-5

taylorchu · 2011-04-23 08:40:53

@dolby
I agree. It needs to be checked carefully.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Us … se_Cleanup
See those packages with (???) or (keep for Single UNIX Specification?) or [Remove from base only when installer is smarter]
Personally, they should be in [core] but not [base].

[base] should only include all packages that "allow arch to be installed and boot"; that's it. Any feature other than that is not for [base].

dolby · 2011-04-23 09:32:16

Allan wrote:

dolby wrote:
Filesystem support isnt leaving base.
I would not be so sure... I believe the latest test installers are smart enough to ensure the appropriate filesystem support package is always installed. Same with packages needed for rain and lvm. So these could be removed from base in the future.

Nice to know that. Just finished downloading the 2011.04.22-netinstall-i686.iso and will hopefully test it in VM when i get the chance.

Spider.007 · 2011-04-23 10:29:07

taylorchu wrote:

@dolby
I agree. It needs to be checked carefully.
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Us … se_Cleanup
See those packages with (???) or (keep for Single UNIX Specification?) or [Remove from base only when installer is smarter]
Personally, they should be in [core] but not [base].
[base] should only include all packages that "allow arch to be installed and boot"; that's it. Any feature other than that is not for [base].

I agree with that list, I think making base lighter would be a good thing; currently I need to uninstall a lot of packages after an install.

Awebb · 2011-04-23 12:13:49

I once ran into the evil trap of assuming that wireless_tools is in base, so I didn't fetch it in the extra menu during the installation. This was the day I learned how chroot works...

Spider.007 · 2011-04-25 10:01:42

Awebb wrote:

I once ran into the evil trap of assuming that wireless_tools is in base, so I didn't fetch it in the extra menu during the installation. This was the day I learned how chroot works...

If it is listed in extra, then you can be pretty sure it is not in base, since it cannot be in 2 groups at the same time?

jac · 2011-04-25 11:11:38

Spider.007 wrote:

currently I need to uninstall a lot of packages after an install.

You can uncheck anything you want when you get to the package selection screen. I just installed on a VM recently without parts of [base]

mike_r · 2011-04-25 17:25:34

Please don't nuke the encryption stuff. Those of us who are required to have full-disk/near-full-disk encryption will thank you!

( I used to get bit by the fact that twofish did not include "encrypt" in the mkinitcpio.conf HOOKS line with his eeepc kernel. Every time I updated the kernel I had to boot from a rescue disk if I forgot to correct it by hand.)

Mike

ANOKNUSA · 2011-04-25 17:25:44

I've gotta agree with Jac. Forgive me for being a prick, but there's no way the amount of time spent on trimming down the list of packages to be installed by the AIF outweighs the time spent on this discussion. Rather than calling for the removal of packages some people no doubt find integral, I would call for the inclusion of package descriptions in the AIF.

Last edited by ANOKNUSA (2011-04-25 17:26:24)

dolby · 2011-04-25 18:53:37

ANOKNUSA wrote:

I would call for the inclusion of package descriptions in the AIF.

Although i haven't tried it myself yet i think thats already done https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/13040

ANOKNUSA · 2011-04-25 20:22:06

Looks like the next .iso might see them. Thanks for the info, dolby.

ConnorBehan · 2011-05-02 01:06:38

Allan wrote:

For the record, here are the base packages that I do not have installed:

Targets (11): mdadm-3.2.1-2  vi-1:050325-1  xfsprogs-3.1.5-1
              cryptsetup-1.2.0-1  dash-0.5.6.1-2  heirloom-mailx-12.5-1
              jfsutils-1.1.14-2  nano-2.2.6-1  pacman-3.5.2-1
              reiserfsprogs-3.6.21-3  rp-pppoe-3.10-5

You did that with "pacman -S --needed core/base" right? Or is there a way to actually show the base packages you don't have installed, regardless of whether the ones you do have are up to date?

taylorchu · 2011-05-02 01:14:14

just to keep a note: there are only 3 packages that are required:
1. kernel26
2. pacman
3. initscripts

with these packages, you can boot arch.

Allan · 2011-05-02 01:27:15

ConnorBehan wrote:

You did that with "pacman -S --needed core/base" right??

Correct

neurolysis · 2011-05-02 04:45:22

taylorchu wrote:

just to keep a note: there are only 3 packages that are required:
1. kernel26
2. pacman
3. initscripts
with these packages, you can boot arch.

As far as I am aware, you can boot without pacman...

nicodoggie · 2011-05-04 08:15:47

Pretty useless using Arch without pacman though, might as well do an LFS install..

neurolysis · 2011-05-04 08:50:20

nicodoggie wrote:

Pretty useless using Arch without pacman though, might as well do an LFS install..

What gave you that idea? You can just use another libalpm client...

ANOKNUSA · 2011-05-04 17:00:49

neurolysis wrote:

nicodoggie wrote:
Pretty useless using Arch without pacman though, might as well do an LFS install..
What gave you that idea? You can just use another libalpm client...

┌────[anoknusa@SKYNET]───────[11:51:15]───────[~]───────
└──> pacfi libalpm
1 abs/pacman-color 3.5.2-1 [0.03 M] [installed]
    Command-line frontend for libalpm aka pacman with color patch
2 aur/clyde-git 20101027-1 (537)
    Next-generation libalpm/makepkg wrapper.
3 aur/lualpm-git 20100329-1 (3)
    Lua bindings for libalpm.
4 aur/pacman-color 3.5.2-1 [installed] (1672)
    Command-line frontend for libalpm aka pacman with color patch
5 aur/pacman-color-testing 3.5.2-1 (49)
    Command-line frontend for libalpm aka pacman with color patch
6 aur/pcurses 20101118-1 (8)
    A curses package browser using libalpm
7 aur/pyalpm 0.4.1-1 (2)
    Libalpm bindings for Python 3

Not much to work with there. (libalpm=libraries for Arch Linux package manager)

PReP · 2011-05-04 21:27:43

We could always add an option before package selection: "I am bloody stubborn"

And you would just get:

kernel26,
initscripts,
bash,
lynx/links
and make

- and a nice motd with a link to the libalpm source and arch wiki.

Last edited by PReP (2011-05-04 21:28:38)

sudokill · 2011-05-05 11:51:37

I know the idea of Arch is to be minimal, but I don't think a few base packages can be considered as bloat. Take a look at the more mainstream distros and what the come with preinstalled if that makes you feel better lol

Arch Linux

#1 2011-04-23 06:24:00

reduce base packages

#2 2011-04-23 06:26:56

Re: reduce base packages

#3 2011-04-23 07:55:39

Re: reduce base packages

#4 2011-04-23 08:20:50

Re: reduce base packages

#5 2011-04-23 08:26:04

Re: reduce base packages

#6 2011-04-23 08:28:07

Re: reduce base packages

#7 2011-04-23 08:40:53

Re: reduce base packages

#8 2011-04-23 09:32:16

Re: reduce base packages

#9 2011-04-23 10:29:07

Re: reduce base packages

#10 2011-04-23 12:13:49

Re: reduce base packages

#11 2011-04-25 10:01:42

Re: reduce base packages

#12 2011-04-25 11:11:38

Re: reduce base packages

#13 2011-04-25 17:25:34

Re: reduce base packages

#14 2011-04-25 17:25:44

Re: reduce base packages

#15 2011-04-25 18:53:37

Re: reduce base packages

#16 2011-04-25 20:22:06

Re: reduce base packages

#17 2011-05-02 01:06:38

Re: reduce base packages

#18 2011-05-02 01:14:14

Re: reduce base packages

#19 2011-05-02 01:27:15

Re: reduce base packages

#20 2011-05-02 04:45:22

Re: reduce base packages

#21 2011-05-04 08:15:47

Re: reduce base packages

#22 2011-05-04 08:50:20

Re: reduce base packages

#23 2011-05-04 17:00:49

Re: reduce base packages

#24 2011-05-04 21:27:43

Re: reduce base packages

#25 2011-05-05 11:51:37

Re: reduce base packages

Board footer