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

[Stephen Gallagher]

> On Jun 30, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzerqung at 0pointer.de> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 30.06.14 16:43, Stephen Gallagher (sgallagh at redhat.com) wrote:
> 
>>>> Well, ideally we'd like the majority of the file to be owned by 
>>>> fedora-release and then just add the one or two additional
>>>> fields specific to the products programmatically.
>>>> 
>>>> I suppose though that we could just carry complete duplicates in
>>>> each fedora-release-* package. Particularly if we end up adding
>>>> a fedora-release-nonproduct (or however we name it) package to
>>>> solve the depsolving issues as suggested by James Antill.
>>> 
>>> I really don't understand why /usr/lib/os-release should have an
>>> API to modify. It describes the vendor operating system image,
>>> really, and his hence strictly not dynamic. We should never invent
>>> mechanisms that make files in /usr subject to runtime
>>> configuration. That would be completely backwards.
>> 
>> Well, it's semi-dynamic. I suppose I'm treating it more like an
>> additive drop directory.
>> 
>> In a sense, there's a certain amount of this definition that every
>> Fedora install will have. The Products then add to this definition. A
>> basic piece of it is mandatory, but the outer edges are add-ons.
> 
> I am not sure this is really what /etc/os-release is for. It's for
> declaring operating system names and versions, not really for containing
> a list of packages you have installed.
> 

That's exactly what I'm describing, though. I'm not sure where you're getting "a list of packages you have installed" from. We're trying to describe that this OS is both "Fedora" and (over and above that) also "Fedora Server".



> Lennart
> 
> -- 
> Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
> -- 
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct