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

Stephen Gallagher sgallagh at redhat.com
Thu Jun 19 11:56:41 UTC 2014


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

NB: I have not read other replies to this thread yet.

On 06/18/2014 04:15 PM, Matthew Miller 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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).
> 


We probably want to get FESCo's blanket approval on this, but I agree.


> 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'd like to reiterate that splitting repos (other than the install
trees) is a non-goal from my perspective. If we ever get to that
point, we have essentially forked Fedora into separate distributions.
I don't want to see that happen.


> 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.
> 

We shouldn't change the VERSION field. I believe ABRT uses that when
filing bugs. Adding a VARIANT field sounds like the best approach to me.

> I suppose /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net would also be candidates
> for alternatives.
> 
> 
> Comments? Missing pieces? Better ways to do it? Volunteers to
> implement?

Once we agree on the content, I volunteer to implement it for Fedora
Server.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAlOiz/kACgkQeiVVYja6o6OHNwCcDDKbLLVHzslE7pQRTxwDE5nl
JigAnAuWC//70E6F0wH8Rc83uPXX5gjy
=sKs0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the devel mailing list