On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 14:59 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Additionally, I am working on a proposal[1] for per-product configs in I think you can go with something very close to this design _if_ you always have a product. This would mean that even a minimal Fedora install would need a system-release-minimal, or whatever. Then all the product subpackages can use the "least requires wins" method of compare providers to make it work (the above is said without any testing). You can keep all the conflicts, but they are more like asserts than something used to help pick the correct subpackage, currently. > the Fedora 21 timeframe which is dependent on the above. It should be > noted that this is an interim solution only; in Fedora 22 we will be > able to vastly simplify this situation with the weak dependency > support in RPM 4.12. (I was looking for a link detailing all of these > weak deps, but I cannot find one. If you know of such a document, > please reply and add it). I don't see how weak deps. will solve any of your problems. If dnf +rpmbuild+createrepo/etc also has support for the planned _rich_ deps. then you should be able to do something like: Require: config-server if system-release-server (is installed) Require: config-workstation if system-release-workstation (is installed) ...which is what you are trying to express. Also DNF should be better able to handle the conflicts with backtracking too, so there's that. > [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Per-Product_Configuration_Packaging_Draft -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
