[@core] working definition for the minimal package set

[Bill Nottingham]

Matthew Miller (mattdm at fedoraproject.org) said: 
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:03:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Is there any reason those two can't be split up? Maybe @really-hard-core
> > > for the first, and @core for the second. ;-)
> > That's basically what Kevin proposed several mails back, and I agree it
> > seems like we have two broadly definable cases here rather than one.
> 
> I think Bill Nottingham mentioned something similar too, although I don't
> want to put words into his mouth.

What I had suggested at one point was we have an 'image-base' group that
is *really* tiny, that is intended to be used as a basis for creating
images, chroot, and other things where you're not necessarily doing package
management *on the running system*.

So it would be:
kernel
systemd
initscripts
util-linux
bash

and their dependencies.

Bill