[Dev] arch replaced the 'base' package group with a leaner 'base' meta-package

bill-auger bill-auger at peers.community
Tue Nov 12 02:32:07 GMT 2019

<oaken-source> why are we discussing adding a base-extra
metapackage / group? Isn't that something upstream should be

i think they are discussing it - my reason to propose it now is
that currently, `pacstrap base` no longer installs a working
system - even if we fix the init-system conflicts, one still must
`pacstrap base linux-libre` at the bare minimum to get a working
system (and a boot-loader too) - in order to get an equivalent
system as what the base group once installed, that pacstrap
command would need to include all of the packages in my previous

if thats the way it is going to be then the documentation could
be updated; but it would be quite ugly indeed - my interest is
raising this topic now, is that i also need to add that mess to
calamares and parabolaiso; and if this is a temporary situation
(if arch does add a 'base-extras' package), then i will need to
revert that anyways - so much simpler to add a 'base-extras'
package now - it would be a harmless optional thing, so i dont
see any reason not to do it - even if it helps only the
installers - the thing to discuss is what packages should go in

probably a better name would be 'parabola-full' or something
similar - i would also like to add a 'parabola-desktop' for the
same reason - as it is now, i am maintaining the package lists
for the installers in three different places; which is kinda
tedious to manage - those are: the package lists for what goes
on the various live systems, the package lists for the ncurses
installers, and the package lists for calamares - it would be
very good to consolidate those; and a good way to manage that is
with meta-packages + 'provides'

More information about the Dev mailing list