package functionality - is it a core feature?

[Havoc Pennington]

On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 18:02 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 17:51 -0500, Mark Johnson wrote:
> > Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > > My suggestion is that we have default package sets for the common use
> > > cases (mail server, desktop, java dev workstation, etc.) and their union
> > > is Core. Is that broken?
> > 
> > i don't think it's broken at all. debian does something similar in that it 
> > groups packages into 'tasks', and you can decide at install time which tasks you 
> > want to install (database server, python development, documentation tools, X, 
> > workstation, etc.)
> > 
> > something similar might work for fc5, but imo fc5 need not comprise the entire 
> > union of all the tasks. just thinking out loud here...
> 
> How is this any different than the way comps handles arbitrary grouping
> right now?
> 

My point was to only have the stuff that's in a comps group in Core at
all (and then the debate about what's in Core can be more about which
comps group, e.g. "does Java Development go in Core" rather than "does
package XYZ go in Core")

Of course there can be flames about which packages are in the comps
groups... but that seems somewhat more manageable than an undefined
Core/Extras line.

Havoc