On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 15:42 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 06/30/2014 03:38 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher > > <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> On 06/30/2014 03:08 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Stephen Gallagher > >>> <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > >>>> > >>>> We're getting down to the wire on Fedora 21 and we need to > >>>> nail down a few of the low-level release requirements. > >>>> > >>>> First of all, I'd like to formally propose that each of the > >>>> products will have a fedora-release-$PRODUCT (and > >>>> corresponding generic-release-$PRODUCT) package. This package > >>>> will meet several needs (with magical hand-waving in this > >>>> initial email). > >>>> > >>>> 1) All Products will add explicit Requires: to the > >>>> fedora-release-$PRODUCT package so that they may define > >>>> their minimal operating set properly. The presence or absence > >>>> of this package on the system will indicate definitively > >>>> which Product (if any) is operating here. > >>> > >>> Um... add Requires: where? Do you mean "All Products will > >>> explicitly > >> > >> There will be Requires: as part of of the > >> fedora-release-$PRODUCT package itself, therefore guaranteeing > >> that a certain set of packages are always installed if the > >> fedora-release-$PRODUCT package is. > >> > >> > >>> include the fedora-release-$PRODUCT package in their kickstart > >>> files"? The way you have it phrased now seems to imply that > >>> some other package Requires: fedora-release-$PRODUCT which > >>> seems very odd. > >>> > >> > >> Let me give an example of the definition of > >> fedora-release-server. > >> > >> Name: fedora-release-server Version: 21 Release: 1 Requires: > >> cockpit Requires: rolekit > > > > OK, I misread. Though looking at this, I'm not sure it's really > > the best solution here. It would certainly work, but it seems > > cumbersome if your product requires more than a handful of > > packages. Listing them all out would be superfluous since comps > > should already do this. Relying on an explicitly listed handful to > > bring in the rest via their RPM deps seems fragile. What you have > > may work for Server but I'm skeptical it will be feasible for > > Workstation. > > > > I'd *LOVE* for yum/dnf to be able to have Requires: @yum-group, > personally... The problem here is that the meaning of @yum-group changes depending on what repos. you have installed (and other things). And having dynamic deps. is really bad. You could maybe do something at rpmbuild time which would convert @yum-group into the a list of packages, just to make the spec files nicer (but this will then be one more magic thing that changes depending on how/where/when you built the .src.rpm). -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
