On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 15:42 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 06/30/2014 03:38 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 06/30/2014 03:08 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Stephen Gallagher
>>> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> We're getting down to the wire on Fedora 21 and we need to
>>>> nail down a few of the low-level release requirements.
>>>>
>>>> First of all, I'd like to formally propose that each of the
>>>> products will have a fedora-release-$PRODUCT (and
>>>> corresponding generic-release-$PRODUCT) package. This package
>>>> will meet several needs (with magical hand-waving in this
>>>> initial email).
>>>>
>>>> 1) All Products will add explicit Requires: to the
>>>> fedora-release-$PRODUCT package so that they may define
>>>> their minimal operating set properly. The presence or absence
>>>> of this package on the system will indicate definitively
>>>> which Product (if any) is operating here.
>>>
>>> Um... add Requires: where? Do you mean "All Products will
>>> explicitly
>>
>> There will be Requires: as part of of the
>> fedora-release-$PRODUCT package itself, therefore guaranteeing
>> that a certain set of packages are always installed if the
>> fedora-release-$PRODUCT package is.
>>
>>
>>> include the fedora-release-$PRODUCT package in their kickstart
>>> files"? The way you have it phrased now seems to imply that
>>> some other package Requires: fedora-release-$PRODUCT which
>>> seems very odd.
>>>
>>
>> Let me give an example of the definition of
>> fedora-release-server.
>>
>> Name: fedora-release-server Version: 21 Release: 1 Requires:
>> cockpit Requires: rolekit
>
> OK, I misread. Though looking at this, I'm not sure it's really
> the best solution here. It would certainly work, but it seems
> cumbersome if your product requires more than a handful of
> packages. Listing them all out would be superfluous since comps
> should already do this. Relying on an explicitly listed handful to
> bring in the rest via their RPM deps seems fragile. What you have
> may work for Server but I'm skeptical it will be feasible for
> Workstation.
>
I'd *LOVE* for yum/dnf to be able to have Requires: @yum-group,
personally...
The problem here is that the meaning of @yum-group changes depending on
what repos. you have installed (and other things). And having dynamic
deps. is really bad.
You could maybe do something at rpmbuild time which would convert
@yum-group into the a list of packages, just to make the spec files
nicer (but this will then be one more magic thing that changes depending
on how/where/when you built the .src.rpm).