On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 03:17:55PM -0600, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> >With those lists in hand, we could work on rationalizing @core and
> >@base (because they're not really well-defined) and perhaps collapse
> >them into one group.
> yes please. Rationalizing and well-defining @core and @base sounds
> great to me
I mean, if there is a rational reason why selinux policy
> should be explicitly listed in those, then fine, but I haven't heard the
> reason yet, just the fact.
I think a rational split is:
1) Base is the minimum required to bootstrap -- this should contain no
more than necessary to install a minimal system from which one can
install everything else. (This should include rpm, and arguably yum.)
2) Core is everything that is "expected" to be installed in a minimal
environment as a matter of policy. selinux-policy probably belongs here.
man, vi, traceroute, openssh -- a minimal functional environment.
In other words, Base is a technical minimum, and Core is the
social one. That makes Core much harder to nail down -- but easy to bump
things from Base to Core.
Matthew Miller email@example.com <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list