Workstation feedback on generic-release-workstation request?

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 08:54 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 16:18 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 14:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154154 is a request to provide 
> > > a generic-release-workstation (sub)package in order to allow for 
> > > convenient remixing of a debranded Fedora Workstation.
> > > 
> > > It seemed odd that firewalld-config-workstation would require 
> > > system-release-workstation and if this were to be done we'd need to be 
> > > sure not to break Fedora composes. I was hoping to hear some comments 
> > > from the workstation group in the ticket.
> > 
> > firewalld-config-workstation requires system-release-workstation
> > specifically to enable the creation of generic-release-workstation
> > packages. (Both generic-release-workstation and
> > fedora-release-workstation would Provides: system-release-workstation)
> 
> Not sure I understand this. Why does firewalld-config-workstation need
> to require any release package ? That seems backwards to me.
> 

It's a relic of the way the dependency-resolution has to work. When
installing the 'firewalld' package (or any other package that
potentially needs to have a different configuration on one product than
another), we need to have a way for yum and dnf to pick the correct
configuration package.

We can't do the reverse -- have [fedora|system]-release-workstation
depend on firewalld-config-workstation -- in the general case because it
would force the inclusion of the application into the unremovable set.
In the firewalld case, this would probably be acceptable, but in the
case of something like Apache (which has been suggested would probably
benefit from different defaults on Server and Workstation), it really
wouldn't be.

So the specific need for the dependency there is to work around
depsolving limitations. Please trust me that when I put that proposal
together, I talked to the RPM, yum, dnf and anaconda folks as well as
getting the proposal approved by the FPC. It's the only feasible way to
do this at the moment (upcoming RPM enhancements with advanced
dependencies may make this better, but those aren't going to show up any
sooner than F23).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/attachments/20141020/77014090/attachment.sig>