comps' "standard" group spring cleaning?

[Michael Scherer]

Le vendredi 11 janvier 2013 à 08:05 -0600, Chris Adams a écrit :
> Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> said:
> >
> > -      <packagereq>ed</packagereq>
> 
> I don't know how widely it is used, but ed is also part of POSIX/SUS.

based on my understanding, POSIX do not mandate them to be there by
default, just to support them :
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap02.html

so not installing them by default will not change much, given that we
already do not support several command :
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/toc.html

I see asa, cflow, cxref, delta, fort77, yacc who would make use fail at
POSIX conformance, since none of them are installed by default ( and I
just quickly looked at the list ).

And while I agree the goal to be POSIX compliant is nice, as far as i
know, we are not, so we do not claim to be. ( ie, people cannot and
should not expect the system to have theses utilities by default ).

So maybe a separate group ( and feature, since that's a rather lengthy
task ) for them would be a start, and then packaging and adding the
missing utilities would be the next step before claiming "we are
compliant". 

A separate group would be better because :
- this is easier to audit ( especially if the norm is updated )
- this doesn't force to install a compiler by default ( fort77 )

-- 
Michael Scherer