I get Arch's whole minimalist thing, I really do. But not even providing man-db in Base? C'mon people. That's just absurd.

@sullybiker holy shit base is so absurd: archlinux.org/packages/core/an

i mean, i understand that the entire point of base is purely to provide the necessary utilities to install more packages and you're not supposed to actually be using it to do anything else, but you'd think being at least equivalent in utilities to a heavily gutted busybox compile.

@nytpu In fairness the docs do say you may need other packages, but no manpages? No dhcp client? GIve me a fucking break.

@sullybiker @nytpu You don't want manpages or the man tool in your container that you won't ever ssh into. I'm assuming this is the usecase.

@clacke @nytpu They do provide container images where that would be appropriate.

@sullybiker @nytpu Maybe they should have packages named like "bare", "cli-base" and "desktop-base" to be clearer.

(maybe they do, I don't know Arch)
@sullybiker @nytpu I quickly[0]‌ ran arch in a container to check if man or man-db have any reverse dependencies. They don't! Can that be true? So if you install a whole Gnome desktop, you still can't assume that man will be there?

# pacman -Qi man-db
Name            : man-db
Version         : 2.9.4-1
Description     : A utility for reading man pages
Architecture    : x86_64
URL             : https://www.nongnu.org/man-db/
Licenses        : GPL  LGPL
Groups          : None
Provides        : man
Depends On      : bash  gdbm  zlib  groff  libpipeline  less  libseccomp
Optional Deps   : gzip [installed]
Required By     : None
Optional For    : None
Conflicts With  : man
Replaces        : man
Installed Size  : 2.26 MiB
Packager        : Andreas Radke <andyrtr@archlinux.org>
Build Date      : Tue 09 Feb 2021 06:36:13 AM UTC
Install Date    : Tue 23 Feb 2021 05:44:16 AM UTC
Install Reason  : Explicitly installed
Install Script  : Yes
Validated By    : Signature

[0]‌ Apart from running into a glibc bug (is there a kernel interface missing?) and picking an image from last year to run instead. bugs.archlinux.org/task/69563
@sullybiker @nytpu Why is that Required-By different from the pacman -Qi‌ Required-By?

So it seems the "cli-base" package that makes things pleasant to interact with is the "posix" package.

@clacke @sullybiker pacman is not aware of package groups unless you explicitly look at them (pacman -Si posix), and no “real” packages require it, so it looks empty.

@nytpu @sullybiker Aha, so that's why the difference. Thank you for the explanation!
Sign in to participate in the conversation

masto instance for the tildeverse