package functionality - is it a core feature?

[Bill Nottingham]

Havoc Pennington (hp at redhat.com) said: 
> 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.

Realistically, that's where we're headed. Of course, there
will be 'additions' to the base comps groups in Extras as well
(in areas such as office apps, development, etc.)

For example, as brought up in this discussion:

- mew/wl/flim/etc aren't in comps
- tora is, but there's significant question as to whether it works, so
  it's a prime candidate for moving

We could do a more rigourous dependency ananlysis and list
all the leaf nodes to spark discussion. :)

Bill