final touches to the desktop spin

[Colin Walters]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:

> Colin Walters (walters at verbum.org) said:
> > > Those packages aren't part of the desktop group; they're part of the
> > > base group.
> >
> > We should move all of the "traditional Unix" bits out that aren't
> actually
> > hard required (talk, rsh, rsync, man-pages) into a separate group, or
> > alternatively switch desktop to somehow depend on @base[required].
>
> Well, we could have a comps file that defines groups like...
>
> But that's a fairly large shift in design.


There is a question how far to go, however, I think one could not argue that
the base group's description "This group includes a minimal set of
packages." is not really accurate.

We could alternatively say that desktop doesn't include @base, and just rely
on explicit dependencies.  But that would need case by case evaluation;
prelink and pm-utils are obvious things we want.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-desktop-list/attachments/20091001/e6a82644/attachment.htm>