On Mon, 30.06.14 16:43, Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh(a)redhat.com) wrote:
>> 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.
Well, it's semi-dynamic. I suppose I'm treating it more like an
additive drop directory.
In a sense, there's a certain amount of this definition that every
Fedora install will have. The Products then add to this definition. A
basic piece of it is mandatory, but the outer edges are add-ons.
I am not sure this is really what /etc/os-release is for. It's for
declaring operating system names and versions, not really for containing
a list of packages you have installed.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat