On Mon, 30.06.14 16:16, Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh(a)redhat.com) wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2014 04:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:44:26PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> Any chance that systemd wants to build a hostnamectl-like
>> interface for setting the os-release values? That would make life
>> a lot easier on us, as we could reconfigure that file if-and-when
>> a fedora-release-$PRODUCT package was installed in a %post
>> snippet.
> What would be the advantage over including /usr/lib/os-release in
> the package directly? What kinds of fields could be modified in
> this way?
>
Well, ideally we'd like the majority of the file to be owned by
fedora-release and then just add the one or two additional fields
specific to the products programmatically.
I suppose though that we could just carry complete duplicates in each
fedora-release-* package. Particularly if we end up adding a
fedora-release-nonproduct (or however we name it) package to solve the
depsolving issues as suggested by James Antill.
I really don't understand why /usr/lib/os-release should have an API to
modify. It describes the vendor operating system image, really, and his
hence strictly not dynamic. We should never invent mechanisms that make
files in /usr subject to runtime configuration. That would be completely
backwards.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat