Workstation feedback on generic-release-workstation request?

[Matthias Clasen]

On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 09:36 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:

> > 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).

I trust you. But I still don't think this is right. The way it should
work is that

firewalld-config-workstation provides firewalld-config
firewalld requires firewalld-config
fedora-release-workstation requires firewalld-config-workstation and
firewalld

> it would force the inclusion of the application into the unremovable
> set

Only if you make firewalld-config-workstation require firewalld - I
don't think you should.