On Mon, 30.06.14 16:43, Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> 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. > > Well, it's semi-dynamic. I suppose I'm treating it more like an > additive drop directory. > > In a sense, there's a certain amount of this definition that every > Fedora install will have. The Products then add to this definition. A > basic piece of it is mandatory, but the outer edges are add-ons. I am not sure this is really what /etc/os-release is for. It's for declaring operating system names and versions, not really for containing a list of packages you have installed. 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
