fedora-release-$PRODUCT, /etc/issue, /etc/os-release, Per-Product Configs and more!
sgallagh at redhat.com
Mon Jul 7 13:02:22 UTC 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 07/06/2014 03:43 AM, William wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 10:05 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Stephen Gallagher
>> <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>> On 07/03/2014 01:42 AM, William wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 20:40 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>>>>> On 07/02/2014 06:55 PM, William wrote:
>>>>>>> First of all, I'd like to formally propose that each of
>>>>>>> the products will have a fedora-release-$PRODUCT (and
>>>>>>> corresponding generic-release-$PRODUCT) package. This
>>>>>>> package will meet several needs (with magical
>>>>>>> hand-waving in this initial email).
>>>>>> How will this work with fedup from 20 to 21? Will there
>>>>>> be multiple upgrade targets?
>>>>> Why would that be necessary? All packages are in one
>>>>> repository, so fedora-release-$PRODUCT will be upgraded to
>>>>> the next version and everything will be fine.
>>>> My machine doesn't currently have a fedora-release-$PRODUCT
>>>> package installed. So how will fedup work out what one to put
>>>> on my system? Will these packages be added to 20, and the
>>>> user need to preinstall before fedup?
>>> It won't put one on your system. Upgrades from a
>>> non-Productized Fedora will remain non-Productized. It's not
>>> *less* Fedora than before.
>>> The Products are basically a statement that "this minimal set
>>> of packages and services are available on the system". A
>>> non-productized Fedora install is essentially just a
>>> continuation of the classic do-it-yourself approach that Fedora
>>> has been up to this point.
>> That's misleading. Fedora hasn't been releasing
>> "do-it-yourself" releases. Our previous install images were
>> composed and tested by QA, including testing fedup upgrades from
>> the previous release. With Fedora.next, we don't have an install
>> image that is an equivalent of <= F20.
>> Perhaps I have missed them, but I've seen no discussion or plans
>> around testing upgrades to F21 from F20. Unless the Products
>> intend to test upgrading from F20, and/or QA intends to somehow
>> test fedup from F20 to F21 in a non-product manner, we're
>> essentially changing the semantics of upgrades. I agree it
>> should still work, but saying it's a continuation of existing
>> practice when it isn't is wrong.
> It's also misleading given how much focus has been given to the
> three new products that will be released: So why now is there a
> "non-productised" version? That's not been advertised much.
I honestly don't know how much more we could have advertised that.
We've been talking about it since the beginning. Particularly about
how the Fedora Products are additive to the classic Fedora and that
spins aren't going away (they're non-productized versions too).
I've talked about this until I was blue in the face at every
opportunity. Please do not confuse "I missed this" with "It wasn't
> I think that some attention needs to be paid to the F20 -> F21
> upgrade path, and it shouldn't be left to the last minute. Do you
> need to choose a product via fedup at upgrade time? Do you support
> a non-productised version?
Of course attention is going to be paid here. But it really should be
no different than existing upgrades. If you want to pick a product
after upgrade, you just 'yum install fedora-release-$PRODUCT' and
you'll get the new release file that includes the hard requirements to
be that Product. If you don't install that release package, you'll
essentially just remain a DIY environment.
At least, this is the way I've been envisioning it and describing for
a long time now. If we're going to change this plan, I feel like the
week of Alpha Freeze is probably kind of late...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the devel