On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 09:36 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > 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). I trust you. But I still don't think this is right. The way it should work is that firewalld-config-workstation provides firewalld-config firewalld requires firewalld-config fedora-release-workstation requires firewalld-config-workstation and firewalld > it would force the inclusion of the application into the unremovable > set Only if you make firewalld-config-workstation require firewalld - I don't think you should. -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
