-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/20/2014 08:19 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:55:02PM -0500, Jon wrote:
>>>
>>> These packages could have dependencies on other packages
>>> which are essential to that product's identity (like ye olde
>>> dreaded "redhat-lsb", I suppose), and could either contain
>>> systemd presets appropriate for that product -- or perhaps
>>> better, could depend on another (for example)
>>> fedora-presets-server package.
>>>
>>
>> Same as above, keep the systemd preset files out of the
>> release package, but feel free to add whatever requirements
>> make sense.
I think this shows that the idea of allowing multiple
fedora-release-<variant> packages to be installed is going to drive
people crazy. Even a simple question which set of presets is active
will not be easy to answer. I think that installing packages from
multiple products should be fine in general, but the branding and
defaults should be exclusive.
For the record, this part of the question was settled already. We
agreed between WGs that there is *no* expectation that we will have
multiple Products installed on a system at the same time (effectively
that fedora-release-$PRODUCT must conflict with all Products). This
will ensure that defaults will be consistent throughout the
installation's lifecycle (or at least until the admin explicitly
chooses to remove/replace the Product-specific release file).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlOmzAIACgkQeiVVYja6o6MJ5gCeMcCAHza/2xK9U0nMlFvjAgfK
hIcAn36yLQ3aPcBomyZvBzWFJgISHu0+
=2ptQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----