-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 NB: I have not read other replies to this thread yet. On 06/18/2014 04:15 PM, Matthew Miller 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. > > 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. > > 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). > We probably want to get FESCo's blanket approval on this, but I agree. > 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'd like to reiterate that splitting repos (other than the install trees) is a non-goal from my perspective. If we ever get to that point, we have essentially forked Fedora into separate distributions. I don't want to see that happen. > 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. > We shouldn't change the VERSION field. I believe ABRT uses that when filing bugs. Adding a VARIANT field sounds like the best approach to me. > I suppose /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net would also be candidates > for alternatives. > > > Comments? Missing pieces? Better ways to do it? Volunteers to > implement? Once we agree on the content, I volunteer to implement it for Fedora Server. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlOiz/kACgkQeiVVYja6o6OHNwCcDDKbLLVHzslE7pQRTxwDE5nl JigAnAuWC//70E6F0wH8Rc83uPXX5gjy =sKs0 -----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
