Proposal: time to set up the fedora-release-{cloud, workstation, server} subpackages

[Jon]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> We talked about this before, but I think now it's getting really close to
> the time when we _need_ it. See
> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110764>... as Dennis says, we
> have not yet decided how to differentiate the different Fedora products.
>
> I suggest that we have fedora-release-{workstation,server,cloud} packages. I
> had originally suggested these as subpackages of fedora-release, but I think
> that it might actually be better to have them be separate packages, so they
> can be maintained and released individually.

Separate packages please, we want to keep the thrash/churn on a
release packages low.

>
> These packages could have dependencies on other packages which are essential
> to that product's identity (like ye olde dreaded "redhat-lsb", I suppose),
> and could either contain systemd presets appropriate for that product -- or
> perhaps better, could depend on another (for example) fedora-presets-server
> package.
>

Same as above, keep the systemd preset files out of the release
package, but feel free to add whatever requirements make sense.

> Aslo, each workgroup should be able to set what services are started in
> those presets rather than needing a FESCo exception (because that's part of
> the point of the different WGs, after all).
>
> Right now, all of the packages are drawing from the same repos, but this
> would also provide an avenue for doing that differently in the future if we
> so choose.
>
> I also suggest that /etc/os-release be switched using the alternatives
> system (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Alternatives), with the
> variant in either the VERSION field (VERSION="21 (Cloud)") or a new
> os-release field which we would propose -- probably VARIANT.
>
I suppose it's better than making server, workstation or whatever
mutually exclusive.
Would /etc/os-release --> /etc/os-release-{workstation,server,cloud}


> I suppose /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net would also be candidates for
> alternatives.
>
Perhaps, but /etc/issue.*  files are things the sysadmin should be
managing, so IMHO be left alone.
(Perhaps I'm not fully appreciating the implications)

-- 

-Jon Disnard