[@core] working definition for the minimal package set

[Seth Vidal]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:

> 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.
>

i think you misunderstand.

if I  am attempting to connect to a server running sshd:

I can run

ssh servername

and that works

I can run
sftp servername
and THAT works

I cannot run
scp servername

I have to have a local scp client installed on the server for scp to work 
as a service.

-sv