[Bug 1428035] Review Request: modular-release - Fedora Modular release files

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428035



--- Comment #5 from Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #3)
> * modular-release.spec:1-3
>   %global is generally preferred over %define; let's switch to that
> 

Done.

> * 90-default.preset:
>   I'd remove the majority of the `enable' presets as nothing in the
>   Base Runtime actually provides such functionality (or in some cases,
>   unit files).  Perhaps your filter mentioned in comment #1 didn't quite
>   work?  Or maybe I'm doing it wrong :)  The one I'd remove include:
>   - bluetooth (we only have the grouping target)
>   - avahi-daemon (we don't have avahi)
>   - cups (we don't have cups)
>   - rsyslog (we don't have rsyslog)
>   - syslog-ng (we don't have syslog-ng)
>   - sysklogd (nothing in Fedora provides this)
>   - gpm (we don't have gpm)
>   - mcelog (we don't have mcelog)
> 

I think you're right that my filter may have been wrong. I've removed those.

> * modular-release.spec:44-48
>   I assume the reason for creating fedora-release and system-release-cpe
> under
>   %{_prefix} (which is not what fedora-release does today) is to unify where
>   all the release files are kept, as issue, issue.net, os-release and
>   os.release.d are already there.  Is that right?  Note fedora-release
>   doesn't do this.
> 

Yes, this is in preparation of the mythical future where empty /etc is
possible. It's been requested of the fedora-release package, but no one has
done the work yet. I figured it was okay for us to just do it.


> * The standard fedora-release package also installs
>   %{_prefix}/lib/os.release.d, plus some files/links under it.
>   Don't we want it too?
> 
> * Additionaly, it also installs %{_prefix}/lib/variant.  Should we have it
> too?

These are related. They exist specifically for dealing with the variants like
Fedora Server Edition vs. Fedora Workstation Edition. We don't need these
because we won't have variant versions of Base Runtime that need to coexist in
the same repository.

(If you want an exhaustive explanation, read
https://sgallagh.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/sausage-factory-multiple-edition-handling-in-fedora/
)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]