On Sat, 2008-02-02 at 07:34 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 16:27 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >> 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:
> > You have the right idea, but Base and Core backwards. And really,
> and right there is part of the problem.
> The absolute minimum maintainable set should be "minimum."
> It needs a text editor, and the one history tells us should be there is
> vi (not that johnny-come-lately nano that some install).
> I don't care whether the practical minimum is "base" or "core," and I
> think I'm not alone in being unable to see the difference between the terms.
The problem is that the word "minimum" is so heavily loaded (and
differently loaded) that if you use it, you make no one happy. So, you
pick different terms so that people can have the "minimum" they are
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list