On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 16:46 -0500, Michael Wiktowy wrote: > On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 19:17 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > So "someone in Red Hat makes a decision" is not the problem. Unclear > > criteria, lack of "what is suitable functionality for core" policy etc > > is a problem (you can argue how big a problem it is of course). > > In a strictly "functional" sense, all that *needs* to be in Core are: > 1) those packages that enable network/Internet access and installation > of more packages > 2) those packages that people will likely use on systems that will never > have network/Internet access I don't agree with you. For me, Core needs to be a Core linux distro. That includes a desktop, browser, media player, mail client and an office suite. Eg core needs to satisfy the basic goals a target audience has with a distro. In addition I think core needs the basic tools that developers would use to develop extras like packages. Eg a compiler set for the common languages, make, patch and other supporting stuff like that. (this also follows from being self consistent and self-hosting, I think Core needs to be self hosting as well) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
