On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 08:54 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 16:18 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 14:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154154 is a request to provide > > > a generic-release-workstation (sub)package in order to allow for > > > convenient remixing of a debranded Fedora Workstation. > > > > > > It seemed odd that firewalld-config-workstation would require > > > system-release-workstation and if this were to be done we'd need to be > > > sure not to break Fedora composes. I was hoping to hear some comments > > > from the workstation group in the ticket. > > > > firewalld-config-workstation requires system-release-workstation > > specifically to enable the creation of generic-release-workstation > > packages. (Both generic-release-workstation and > > fedora-release-workstation would Provides: system-release-workstation) > > Not sure I understand this. Why does firewalld-config-workstation need > to require any release package ? That seems backwards to me. > It's a relic of the way the dependency-resolution has to work. When installing the 'firewalld' package (or any other package that potentially needs to have a different configuration on one product than another), we need to have a way for yum and dnf to pick the correct configuration package. We can't do the reverse -- have [fedora|system]-release-workstation depend on firewalld-config-workstation -- in the general case because it would force the inclusion of the application into the unremovable set. In the firewalld case, this would probably be acceptable, but in the case of something like Apache (which has been suggested would probably benefit from different defaults on Server and Workstation), it really wouldn't be. So the specific need for the dependency there is to work around depsolving limitations. Please trust me that when I put that proposal together, I talked to the RPM, yum, dnf and anaconda folks as well as getting the proposal approved by the FPC. It's the only feasible way to do this at the moment (upcoming RPM enhancements with advanced dependencies may make this better, but those aren't going to show up any sooner than F23).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
