2014-03-10 17:10 GMT+01:00 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx>:
Do we have actual use cases? Not just "some package might need to", but "$package needs to diverge in $config and obvious/simple approaches like comps aren't sufficient".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.
Without such use cases, if the recommendation to use alternatives(8) stems from case 3 "Want to have a single tool that can switch default configs per-package", I feel fairly confident in just rejecting that theoretical use case. (IOW, a Server would still be a Server if workstation is co-installed, and Cloud would still be using the Cloud-specific defaults if the full Server package set is installed.)
(The numbered cases 1 and 2 are still necessary, but this proposal really does nothing for them besides "write some code"—we can always do that, not necessarily invoking alternatives(8).)
Mirek
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
