On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Bill Nottingham <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:notting@redhat.com">notting@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Colin Walters (<a href="mailto:walters@verbum.org">walters@verbum.org</a>) said:<br>
</div><div class="im">> > Those packages aren't part of the desktop group; they're part of the<br>
> > base group.<br>
><br>
> We should move all of the "traditional Unix" bits out that aren't actually<br>
> hard required (talk, rsh, rsync, man-pages) into a separate group, or<br>
> alternatively switch desktop to somehow depend on @base[required].<br>
<br>
</div>Well, we could have a comps file that defines groups like...<br><br>
But that's a fairly large shift in design.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>There is a question how far to go, however, I think one could not argue that the base group's description "This group includes a minimal set of packages." is not really accurate.</div>
<div><br></div><div>We could alternatively say that desktop doesn't include @base, and just rely on explicit dependencies. But that would need case by case evaluation; prelink and pm-utils are obvious things we want.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div>