On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@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 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
