Workstation feedback on generic-release-workstation request?

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Mon, 2014-10-20 at 16:44 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 10/20/2014 04:08 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >> 3) From a user's perspective, if they see configuration for a service or
> >> application in their package list, they may assume that package is
> >> installed and running, leading to confusion.
> > 
> > That is more worrying, yes.
> 
> If showing a separate package in the installed package list is a
> problem, then the configuration files could be shipped directly in the
> fedora-release-* packages too. Which also incidentally makes the whole
> thing much easier to handle because that way we'd have less conflicting
> packages in the repository.
> 
> I'm sure there are downsides to this though, like configuration possibly
> getting out of sync with the actual programs if nobody takes care of
> updating the fedora-release-* packages.



Polluting the fedora-release packages with internal details of other
packages seems like a terrible idea to me, honestly. Configuration
should remain with the package (and packager) that understands it.
-------------- 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/20141020/5836238c/attachment.sig>