-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/10/2014 09:53 AM, Mike Pinkerton wrote: > > On 10 Jul 2014, at 07:04, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 07/09/2014 05:08 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 04:42:23PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher >>> wrote: >>>> I do not know which or if any Spins will be providing the >>>> specific net install CD you're asking about. This will not be >>>> an *official* (read: tested by QA) method of installing >>>> Fedora. However, I see no reason why it wouldn't work. >>> >>> >>> A few months ago* I remember the server WG talking about >>> providing a minimal/netinstall image. Has this changed? >>> >>> * dredges up meeting logs -- >>> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/server-wg/server-wg.2014-02-25-16.00.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>> That's why I said the *specific* netinstall he was asking for. The >> Fedora Server netinstall wouldn't be producing a non-productized >> result, which is what he asked for: "4. There would be, at >> least, a net install CD to install a traditional >> "non-productized" Fedora system." > > > A minimal netinstall would be ok if there is a simple way to > replace the "productized" fedora-release package with a plain, > non-productized fedora-release package. > > In saying that, I am making an assumption that, once the > fedora-release package is switched out, then any "product" > requirements or constraints would disappear and the system would be > a traditional, non-productized Fedora system that could then be > configured however the system administrator chose. > > Is that assumption wrong? > > Thanks. > That is the intent of the design, yes. We're dealing with some real-world issues with that (namely that the way dependency-processing works in yum and dnf has issues with this), so it may require us to code up a special tool to switch from productized to non-productized and vice-versa. Stop reading now if you don't care about minutia: Basically, in order to swap out the productized and non-productized release packages, it's not actually as simple as 'yum swap fedora-release-standard fedora-release-server'. The way the dependency processing works in yum and dnf will generally fall over and fail to properly detect the other packages that would need to be swapped (such as firewalld-config-standard -> firewalld-config-server). So what we will probably need to do is write a tool that will examine the RPM database for all product-specific packages and swap them in a single transaction. This is hard to do *generically*, but if everyone sticks with the convention mandated by my proposed Draft, it becomes a pattern-match instead of a deep dependency comparison (which is probably "good enough" for the first pass). There's also a significant hope that future RPM enhancements (with complex and powerful deps like "if foo is installed, then install bar") will allow us to make this a much more simple process. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlO+pFkACgkQeiVVYja6o6NlYQCdG8Ht54cjvmL7Gyil0JjJwNTW RLUAn1A7f6Q/t4VzO+9Z5zHHJtQeCqBk =Exps -----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
