fedora-release-$PRODUCT, /etc/issue, /etc/os-release, Per-Product Configs and more!

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/09/2014 03:07 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
> 
> On 7 Jul 2014, at 11:17, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Gallagher 
>> <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
>>> 
>>> On 07/06/2014 03:43 AM, William wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 10:05 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>>> josh
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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).
>> 
>> You're talking about additive in the "they all use the same
>> repos" sense, but there is no planned install media that will be
>> produced similar to the F20 release.  There are the 3 products,
>> and there are the spins.  The product closest to the existing
>> Fedora default is Workstation, and we're targeting a live media
>> as the primary deliverable.  There have been 0 plans or
>> discussions around fedup/upgrades from F20 so far.
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate that the Fedora project has goals that it wants
> to achieve with the three new "products", I had assumed based on
> the explanations that I have read that:
> 
> 1.  There will not be any change in the repo structure -- no
> separate repos for separate "products".
> 

This is true.


> 2.  For those of us who are not interested in the new "products" or
> do not find their minimum package assurances to be important in our
> use cases, there will still be a traditional "non-productized"
> Fedora.
> 

This is nuanced. Fedora as a non-Productized repository will exist.
See below.


> 3.  There will still be plain "non-productized" versions of 
> /etc/os-release (or wherever the systemd guys are relocating it)
> and /etc/fedora-release.
> 

This is true.


> 4.  There would be, at least, a net install CD to install a
> traditional "non-productized" Fedora system.
> 

This is not strictly true. The *official* install media will be for
one of the Products. There will also be install media and/or live
images for the Spins. These Spins will essentially be installing
specific package sets from non-productized Fedora.

I do not know which or if any Spins will be providing the specific net
install CD you're asking about. This will not be an *official* (read:
tested by QA) method of installing Fedora. However, I see no reason
why it wouldn't work.


> 5.  A fedup upgrade will be possible from a traditional 
> "non-productized" Fedora 20 system to a traditional
> "non-productized" Fedora 21 system and, in due time, from
> traditional "non-productized" Fedora 21 to 22, etc.
> 

This statement is true for F20->F21. For F21->F22, I want it to be
possible to go from "non-productized" to "productized" *if the user
wishes* (opt-in, not opt-out).


> Am I mistaken on any or all of this?
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlO9qS8ACgkQeiVVYja6o6Oa3ACbBm+zSBn3I2WLRhjU35d16644
emEAnjSHRMoSOX3aGXrobm+uxzYbSfaG
=e1DI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----