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

Josh Boyer jwboyer at fedoraproject.org
Mon Jun 30 19:08:12 UTC 2014


On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> We're getting down to the wire on Fedora 21 and we need to nail down a
> few of the low-level release requirements.
>
> 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).
>
> 1) All Products will add explicit Requires: to the
> fedora-release-$PRODUCT package so that they may define their minimal
> operating set properly. The presence or absence of this package on the
> system will indicate definitively which Product (if any) is operating
> here.

Um... add Requires: where?  Do you mean "All Products will explicitly
include the fedora-release-$PRODUCT package in their kickstart files"?
 The way you have it phrased now seems to imply that some other
package Requires: fedora-release-$PRODUCT which seems very odd.

> 2) The fedora-release-$PRODUCT package (and possibly %post or systemd
> snippets therein) will be responsible for the creation and maintenance
> of /etc/issue, /etc/os-release and /etc/fedora-release-product (note:
> there is no $ there. That's the literal name. This file will be
> equivalent to /etc/fedora-release except that it will include the
> Product name.
>
> 3) fedora-release-$PRODUCT will have an explicit Conflict with all
> other fedora-release-$PRODUCT packages, to ensure that we do not
> mix-and-match (which is a combinatorial nightmare).

How does this play into the pets vs. cattle thing that Server and
Cloud have talked about?  How would one go from a cattle Cloud
instance to a pet Server instance in the Cloud if there are explicit
conflicts there.

josh


More information about the devel mailing list