On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:55:02PM -0500, Jon wrote:
> I also suggest that /etc/os-release be switched using the
alternatives
> system (
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives), with the
> variant in either the VERSION field (VERSION="21 (Cloud)") or a new
> os-release field which we would propose -- probably VARIANT.
Yes, either
should work.
I suppose it's better than making server, workstation or
whatever
mutually exclusive.
Would /etc/os-release --> /etc/os-release-{workstation,server,cloud}
The whole
point of moving to /etc/os-release is that (on any distro)
it is trivial to query because of the fixed filename. Renaming is
not really an option.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 07:11:56PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:55:02 -0500
Jon <jdisnard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Miller
> <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > We talked about this before, but I think now it's getting really
> > close to the time when we _need_ it. See
> > <
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110764>... as Dennis
> > says, we have not yet decided how to differentiate the different
> > Fedora products.
> >
> > I suggest that we have fedora-release-{workstation,server,cloud}
> > packages. I had originally suggested these as subpackages of
> > fedora-release, but I think that it might actually be better to
> > have them be separate packages, so they can be maintained and
> > released individually.
>
> Separate packages please, we want to keep the thrash/churn on a
> release packages low.
I actually prefer a single package. if its not we will at the least
need to look at making a separate repos packages. as thats something we
do not want to risk copy paste errors etc.
> >
> > These packages could have dependencies on other packages which are
> > essential to that product's identity (like ye olde dreaded
> > "redhat-lsb", I suppose), and could either contain systemd presets
> > appropriate for that product -- or perhaps better, could depend on
> > another (for example) fedora-presets-server package.
> >
>
> Same as above, keep the systemd preset files out of the release
> package, but feel free to add whatever requirements make sense.
I think this
shows that the idea of allowing multiple
fedora-release-<variant> packages to be installed is going
to drive people crazy. Even a simple question which set of
presets is active will not be easy to answer. I think that installing
packages from multiple products should be fine in general, but
the branding and defaults should be exclusive.
> > Aslo, each workgroup should be able to set what services
are
> > started in those presets rather than needing a FESCo exception
> > (because that's part of the point of the different WGs, after all).
> >
> > Right now, all of the packages are drawing from the same repos, but
> > this would also provide an avenue for doing that differently in the
> > future if we so choose.
> >
> > I also suggest that /etc/os-release be switched using the
> > alternatives system
> > (
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives), with the
> > variant in either the VERSION field (VERSION="21 (Cloud)") or a new
> > os-release field which we would propose -- probably VARIANT.
> >
> I suppose it's better than making server, workstation or whatever
> mutually exclusive.
> Would /etc/os-release --> /etc/os-release-{workstation,server,cloud}
eww, I honestly don't think alternatives is appropriate here.
Yeah, let's
not overcomplicate things.
> > I suppose /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net would also be
candidates for
> > alternatives.
> >
> Perhaps, but /etc/issue.* files are things the sysadmin should be
> managing, so IMHO be left alone.
> (Perhaps I'm not fully appreciating the implications)
Zbyszek