-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 16:55:02 -0500 Jon <jdisnard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Miller > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > 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. > > > 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) > Dennis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJToirMAAoJEH7ltONmPFDR7dUQAM5x42QxpYamwGXAkYsKiEPv uyBOazYzm9ZtbMiAdJjxfwj8iQdSnOPJr9+EoNSG8IFpwqrlcVP7m7raHq8a6Puz n0R4nXfeiaeGuGAVX2I33drws1DFViGPyXViSZynugKJHQsoMw4qzi9hqxwT1Dcd 0l2gyZP6vphBP/PBTjBjCOX1Pz1Q+ys6wETUZL3Z/0ooCqQuOH8WyLvVF1C5O0EZ lyhF+JzJJux1l1k73GSl52eO0wKal29e8tTGj1qrY8GVg8G+BBlE2OVTedTBrnrt k+imU993e03r5RBXR5jwYuxUFCl7+yM93nMBY03kw2DzgRUtzJRpNf+7MLyxrDr/ c0tU6VMj8wuElXbl3j90aVisG6KzmJSgjqaiotxsNokTTNT1c7OIFu/yhZj5Ol0A RCScJkpwJR7Bpq7nM44rc2426eUXEgK2jCSbTFBGNHA4z+FZE1nxixeNp4na0WRV /M5c6bfjN2nBraGgkDY1sgOVXHJzSqYqx5skQRLtmXkuMz5k6Ix5zI0UZl9QwSzX hCVNliRCvi+1a/qlrx40ohVgfhsWkNNXlMl1FG+uy1gLLYZCkEHhegVB/n84H01N P6OArFmyvuGxwty6psPZ+4dQhkWOpBOydGCTyaCm2ZqUOfEhyv+I3Cgy8UwJgM/f ulmpH62YYcfMuO0kJe8z =QQUV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
