[@core] working definition for the minimal package set

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 17:15 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:

> > Is NM really required for "basic" networking?  If so, you probably don't
> > need to specify some of the rest (such as dhclient) manually.  NM brings
> > a bunch of deps I believe.
> 
> So far everything works without, and I think we should endevor to keep that
> true.

I think this is similar to the firewalld issue in that the basic theory
here is that, look, NetworkManager is the way, the truth and the light:
it's supposed to be the One True Networking System, and we're just
keeping the network service around because there's some stuff it does
that NM doesn't do yet.

This logic is getting a tad stretched because we've been rolling with it
for several years at this point, but AIUI this is still the party line
and the reason NetworkManager is in core. In theory the idea is not that
we provide, actively maintain and support both NM and the network
service, but that we want to only provide, maintain and support NM, and
we're keeping the legacy 'network service' stuff around only until NM is
done.

It might be worth re-evaluating whether that's realistic any more,
though, and whether we're _really_ committed to finally replacing
network with NM in some kind of reasonable timeframe.

(It's also a possibility of course that I'm misunderstanding and that we
do intend to provide and support 'network' for the foreseeable future,
in which case I'd agree it should be in @core and NM should be only in
@standard).
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net