New criterion for installation with minimal set of packages

[Jon Stanley]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:

>> That's an implementation detail. It's not a capability-driven
>> description of which packages should actually be in the minimal package
>> set, as was discussed earlier in the thread.
>
> Merely stating that if you're linking to what the minimal set of packages
> will be, that's it.

But to Adam's point, who defines what is in @core and what it can do?
Could I decide tomorrow that the GNOME desktop is a core functionality
of the distro and commit it to comps and so it is (I seriously hope
someone would come shoot me if I *actually* did that :) )?

I guess this goes to the point that no one "owns" comps groups, but I
think someone should, and @core (and to a lesser extent @base) should
be "special" to have some defined set of functionality.

But I think this is getting *way* off topic for QA and should be a
fesco discussion :)