[@core] working definition for the minimal package set

[Dennis Jacobfeuerborn]

On 11/12/2012 06:03 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 11:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:29:34AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>>> I think ssh has to be in the mix. Of ths systems I use/maintain/etc
>>>>> very few of them are ones I actually have a reliable console to.
>>>>> If ssh isn't there, I have to add it just to get the system set up.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah: if we get to the point where every real install has to add the same
>>>> subset of packages to core, I don't think we've succeeded in doing
>>>> anything
>>>> except make more work for the whole world.
>>>>
>>>> A cron daemon and (at least basic) MTA fall in the same area, I think.
>>>> But what about ssh-clients?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a reasonable yardstick rule we can make, or is it pragmatically
>>>> best to just make per-package decisions?
>>>>
>>>
>>> so - imo
>>>
>>> openssh-clients is required, yes - b/c w/o them scp doesn't work. :-/
>>
>> Perhaps scp could be moved to the base openssh package then.
>>
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me.

Not sure that's a good idea. "ssh" itself is also part of the clients
package and should probably moved as well then. "sftp" is probably popular
too. I think its better to bite the bullet and just include the clients
package as a whole.

Regards,
  Dennis