Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in Unsupported. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#64049 - [archiso] Missing packages after base-meta change

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Joe Claiborne (joey_clay) - Monday, 07 October 2019, 09:06 GMT
Last edited by Pierre Schmitz (Pierre) - Wednesday, 16 October 2019, 15:24 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Pierre Schmitz (Pierre)
Levente Polyak (anthraxx)
Architecture All
Severity High
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 5
Private No

Details

Description:
Building a plain releng archiso after the change from base group to base meta-package, now results in missing packages. 22 packages were present on a releng iso before the change, but are now missing:

dhcpcd
diffutils
groff
jfsutils
libaio
libpipeline
linux-firmware
logrotate
lvm2
man-db
man-pages
mdadm
nano
netctl
openresolv
reiserfsprogs
s-nail
thin-provisioning-tools
usbutils
vi
which
xfsprogs

Additional info:
archiso 42-1
Plain config, releng

Steps to reproduce:
# cp -r /usr/share/archiso/configs/releng/ archlive
# cd archlive
# ./build.sh -v
This task depends upon

Closed by  Pierre Schmitz (Pierre)
Wednesday, 16 October 2019, 15:24 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Comment by Christian Hesse (eworm) - Monday, 07 October 2019, 09:13 GMT
I think it's ok some of these are missing, others need to be added to packages file.
Comment by Pierre Schmitz (Pierre) - Tuesday, 08 October 2019, 07:30 GMT
I'll have a look at this.
* At first we may just restore the previous package list.
* Next we might discuss providing a meta package for the install media as well, which should depend on the base package. This way we would be more consistent and wont have to deal with package groups and lists maintained in text files.
Comment by Eli Schwartz (eschwartz) - Tuesday, 08 October 2019, 16:37 GMT
The point of using a metapackage instead of a group was to ensure that users are not permitted to casually remove required packages. If we are just going to list every package on the previous group, we might as well go back to using a group.

This is the perfect opportunity to do what I keep saying we should have done in the first place: create a new base package which depends on *required* packages, and transfer all other packages which used to be *recommended* as the base group, to a new group called "base-extras" which makes it clearer that they are a recommendation and not a requirement.
Comment by Darek (blablo) - Tuesday, 08 October 2019, 18:22 GMT
>This is the perfect opportunity to do what I keep saying we should have done in the first place: create a new base package which depends on *required* packages, and transfer all other packages which used to be *recommended* as the base group, to a new group called "base-extras" which makes it clearer that they are a recommendation and not a requirement.

That is a very reasonable suggestion. +1
Comment by Bario (barmadrid) - Tuesday, 15 October 2019, 18:03 GMT
Will this be updated by November ISO release?
Comment by Pierre Schmitz (Pierre) - Tuesday, 15 October 2019, 18:13 GMT
Yes, that's the idea. Also note: this issue is just about the packages that are available on the install image itself, not the actual Arch install the user might trigger.
Comment by Pierre Schmitz (Pierre) - Wednesday, 16 October 2019, 09:33 GMT
I would propose to add the following packages back to the next image:
dhcpcd
diffutils
jfsutils
linux-firmware
lvm2
man-db
man-pages
mdadm
nano
netctl
reiserfsprogs
usbutils
vi
xfsprogs

Which means I think the following packages will be removed:
which
s-nail
logrotate
Comment by Pierre Schmitz (Pierre) - Wednesday, 16 October 2019, 15:24 GMT
Alright, I have updated the list for now.

Loading...