[@core] working definition for the minimal package set

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 02:43:24PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > That would be weird. But fortunately, it's @core, not @minimal. So we
> > could easily have @minimal, @core, and @standard, each with different
> > targets.
> Hm, the scope expansion happened rather quickly.
> 
> Can we, for now, restrict ourselves to things that an "ordinary
> sysadmin" would encounter?  That would, right now, mean anaconda-based
> or image-based installations of full systems.

+1. Specifically, regardless of the above distinction, we should really
focus on @core.

> Anyone running custom scripts to create container chroots, or building
> hypervisor images where post-install files are removed from the
> system, is more of a programmer and therefore less reliant on us
> choosing a good default for the @core/@standard comps groups.

I don't think "more of a programmer" is necessarily the right
categorization, but I think "not in need of specific comps group defaults"
is probably true.


-- 
Matthew Miller  ☁☁☁  Fedora Cloud Architect  ☁☁☁  <mattdm at fedoraproject.org>