On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:51 AM Dave Love <loveshack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > You wrote: > > > I think generally the Fedora/RH-ecosystem answer is to use Ansible for > > configuration, rather than configuration packages. > > > > That's not sayin' there can't be another answer, but in general that's > > the route *I'd* take to solve this problem on my systems. > > I guess we disagree about what the problem is, but it's unfortunate if > Fedora/RH isn't interested in the sort of environment for which > config-package was developed. The reason Ansible is used is because we have no current equivalent facilities to do delayed script execution or diversion of configuration files. Both are functions required for Debian-style configuration packages. Feel free to file an issue with rpm upstream[1] to figure out a good way to support configuration packages if you want it. On the flip side, because these facilities haven't existed for so long and the RPM ecosystem largely rejected interactive script hooks in RPMs, most packages ship with "working defaults" and are trivially reconfigurable through external automation tools, which is why mass provisioning and configuration management systems work so well for RPM based systems. [1]: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/KOYWCYKBDBQUY532IQCBOYDT2FBGN4A5/
