|
Dne 11.3.2014 13:25, Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > On 03/11/2014 02:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 10.3.2014 17:10, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a): > >> At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products desired to > >> have divergent configuration was briefly touched on. On > >> Thursday, a few FPC members had a brainstorming session about it > >> and on Friday, sgallagh and that brainstorming continued with > >> sgallagh, adamw, tflink, notting, and myself. We came up with a > >> tentative idea here: > >> > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/Product_Divergence_(config) > >> > >> > >> > The idea is to allow config file divergence via the alternatives system as > >> that already provides us with a commandline tool and some > >> structure to > > build > >> on. We'd still have to write a few pieces to complete the > >> picture but it seemed to be a better starting point than using > >> rpm Conflicts between config-packages. > >> > >> Anyone have thoughts on this potential path? > >> > >> -Toshio > >> > >> > > > > With rich dependencies coming to Fedora, wouldn't be better to wait > > for a bit and benefit from them? We would have product specific > > configuration in subpackages and installed it such as "Requires: > > fedora-product-cloud & foo-config-cloud; Requires: > > fedora-product-server & foo-config-server". > > > > That unfortunately doesn't address the issue in a realistic way. I > don't think there's a way that dependency resolution can resolve that > in a positive way. The closest I can see coming up with would be: > > == foo == > Requires: foo-config > > == foo-config-server == > Provides: foo-config = 1.0 > Conflicts: fedora-release-workstation > Conflicts: fedora-release-cloud > > == foo-config-workstation == > Provides: foo-config = 1.0 > Conflicts: fedora-release-server > Conflicts: fedora-release-cloud > > == foo-config-cloud == > Provides: foo-config = 1.0 > Conflicts: fedora-release-workstation > Conflicts: fedora-release-server > > == foo-config-default == > Provides: foo-config = 2.0 > Conflicts: fedora-release-workstation > Conflicts: fedora-release-server > Conflicts: fedora-release-cloud > > So, if installed on a Product, yum would resolve whichever config > subpackage doesn't hit any conflicts (which would be the matching > version or the default, if not on a product). > > > There are a couple down-sides to this approach: > 1) It eliminates the possibility of having multiple Products installed > on the same system. Whether we care about this is being debated > elsewhere, but this approach would make it impossible. > 2) It might make life a real pain in the neck to deal with adding new > Products to Fedora, since any package providing custom authentication > will have to tweak Provides: and Conflicts: to ensure that the new > Product gets reasonable defaults. You are speaking about how to achieve that in current Fedora, if I understand that correctly. I am speaking about F22, where RPM/DNF should hopefully support rich dependencies. BTW if each package contains the same file, lets say /etc/foo.cfg, but the content of this file is different between the packages, they conflicts without explicit conflict, if I am not mistaken. Vít |
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
