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-$PRODUCT package so that they may define their minimal
operating set properly. The presence or absence of this package on the
system will indicate definitively which Product (if any) is operating
here.
Um... add Requires: where? Do you mean "All Products will explicitly
include the fedora-release-$PRODUCT package in their kickstart files"?
The way you have it phrased now seems to imply that some other
package Requires: fedora-release-$PRODUCT which seems very odd.
2) The fedora-release-$PRODUCT package (and possibly %post or
systemd
snippets therein) will be responsible for the creation and maintenance
of /etc/issue, /etc/os-release and /etc/fedora-release-product (note:
there is no $ there. That's the literal name. This file will be
equivalent to /etc/fedora-release except that it will include the
Product name.
3) fedora-release-$PRODUCT will have an explicit Conflict with all
other fedora-release-$PRODUCT packages, to ensure that we do not
mix-and-match (which is a combinatorial nightmare).
How does this play into the pets vs. cattle thing that Server and
Cloud have talked about? How would one go from a cattle Cloud
instance to a pet Server instance in the Cloud if there are explicit
conflicts there.
josh