On Mon, 30.06.14 16:16, Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 06/30/2014 04:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 03:44:26PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> Any chance that systemd wants to build a hostnamectl-like > >> interface for setting the os-release values? That would make life > >> a lot easier on us, as we could reconfigure that file if-and-when > >> a fedora-release-$PRODUCT package was installed in a %post > >> snippet. > > What would be the advantage over including /usr/lib/os-release in > > the package directly? What kinds of fields could be modified in > > this way? > > > Well, ideally we'd like the majority of the file to be owned by > fedora-release and then just add the one or two additional fields > specific to the products programmatically. > > I suppose though that we could just carry complete duplicates in each > fedora-release-* package. Particularly if we end up adding a > fedora-release-nonproduct (or however we name it) package to solve the > depsolving issues as suggested by James Antill. I really don't understand why /usr/lib/os-release should have an API to modify. It describes the vendor operating system image, really, and his hence strictly not dynamic. We should never invent mechanisms that make files in /usr subject to runtime configuration. That would be completely backwards. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
