Bug 821631

Summary:	Gnome icon theme not needed in minimal installation
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Germano Massullo (Thetra) <germano.massullo>
Component:	gnome-icon-theme	Assignee:	David Zeuthen <davidz>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	16	CC:	davidz, jessejj89, jonathan.underwood, mclasen
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Triaged
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2012-08-03 14:11:40 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Germano Massullo (Thetra) 2012-05-15 07:45:58 UTC

Description of problem:
I installed Fedora 16 from DVD using minimal installation, then I did not checked any window enviroment to install.
But I can cleary see in list of installed packages:
gnome-icon-theme-legacy
gnome-icon-theme-symbolic
gnome-icon-theme

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
Install Fedora from DVD

Steps to Reproduce:
1. In installing procedure, select minimal installation and then check the box for manual packages select
2. Be sure no window enviroment has been selected
3. Install the system
  
Actual results:
You have useless packages like gnome icon theme

Expected results:
Not to have uneeded GUI packages

Additional info:

Comment 1 Germano Massullo (Thetra) 2012-05-15 07:51:03 UTC

I also noticed the presence of packages ibus, ibus-gtk2,ibus-gtk3

Comment 2 Jesse J. Nunez 2012-08-03 14:11:40 UTC

Thank you for your bug report. You can contact the packaging mailing-list https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

You can also use IRC
#fedora-devel on freenode.net.

Comment 3 Jonathan Underwood 2012-09-06 10:42:32 UTC

Jesse: re-directing the user to the Fedora packaging mailing list wasn't the right thing to do with this bug - that mainiling list is for discussions of packaging policy within Fedora.