Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 2) foo-config-cloud remains on the system, irrespective of the
> presence of fedora-release-cloud
That's what's going to happen, because there's nothing that enforces that
foo-config-default MUST be the one used by default. It's only preferred at
install time du
2014-03-16 6:16 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kofler :
> foo.spec:
> Requires: foo-config-default or foo-config-server or foo-config-cloud
> Requires: not fedora-release-server or foo-config-server
> Requires: not fedora-release-cloud or foo-config-cloud
Well. At the same time, I'm rather impressed that this w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/17/2014 09:13 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 08:26:52AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> [1] I could be wrong here; it depends on how RPM and YUM handles
>> 'yum remove fedora-release-cloud; yum install
>> fedora-release-se
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 08:26:52AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> [1] I could be wrong here; it depends on how RPM and YUM handles 'yum
> remove fedora-release-cloud; yum install fedora-release-server'. Lets
> assume that foo has foo-config-cloud installed. I see three possible
> outcomes to 'yu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/16/2014 01:16 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> - From what I've seen of the planned "rich" dependencies, I don't
>> think they would provide any mechanism better than this one
>> anyway. Can you explain how you would see this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/16/2014 01:13 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> The primary problem is that we need to be able to address the
>> potential for packages that *aren't* part of the default install
>> to handle differing config based on the Prod
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> - From what I've seen of the planned "rich" dependencies, I don't think
> they would provide any mechanism better than this one anyway. Can you
> explain how you would see this working, with a specific example?
foo.spec:
Requires: foo-config-default or foo-config-server
Adam Williamson wrote:
> AIUI the installer team's opinion is more or less the precise opposite:
> the live installation case is problematic and if we're getting rid of
> anything, we should get rid of that.
But AFAIK, ALL the desktop teams (the Red Hat Desktop Team working on GNOME
and the SIGs
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> The primary problem is that we need to be able to address the
> potential for packages that *aren't* part of the default install to
> handle differing config based on the Product upon which it is being
> installed.
>
> For example, let's say that theoretically, Fedora Cl
2014-03-10 17:10 GMT+01:00 Toshio Kuratomi :
> At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products desired to have
> divergent configuration was briefly touched on. On Thursday, a few FPC
> members had a brainstorming session about it and on Friday, sgallagh and
> that brainstorming continued wi
On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 15:46 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Just for the more-public-record, I remain pretty sure this is a bad idea
> and don't think we should allow it. You should always be considered to
> be running exactly 0 or 1 Products. I think we should consider how to
> allow things like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2014 09:03 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 11.3.2014 13:25, Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
>> On 03/11/2014 02:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Dne 10.3.2014 17:10, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products d
Dne 11.3.2014 13:25, Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> On 03/11/2014 02:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Dne 10.3.2014 17:10, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
> >> At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products desired to
> >> have divergent configuration was briefly touched on. On
> >> Thursday, a few
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2014 02:46 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 10.3.2014 17:10, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
>> At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products desired to
>> have divergent configuration was briefly touched on. On
>> Thursday, a few FPC members h
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:27:12AM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> > For cloud, the answer is "start with the new image", or else "okay then,
> > you're on your own". But cloud has a big luxury of being the easy case
> > in this regard.
> What about folks trying to move their server from the server
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2014 11:27 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> The idea is to allow config file divergence via the alternatives
>> system as that already provides us with a commandline tool and
>> some structure to build on. We'd still have t
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 01:55:59PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> For cloud, the answer is "start with the new image", or else "okay then,
> you're on your own". But cloud has a big luxury of being the easy case
> in this regard.
What about folks trying to move their server from the server product
Dne 10.3.2014 17:10, Toshio Kuratomi napsal(a):
> At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products desired to have
> divergent configuration was briefly touched on. On Thursday, a few FPC
> members had a brainstorming session about it and on Friday, sgallagh and
> that brainstorming continued
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> What's wrong with just dropping the defaults in /etc in the Product's live
> kickstart? (Yes, that assumes the Product is delivered as a live image. We
For server images, Live isn't so hot. Can anaconda be taught to
execute a %product Foo ki
On Tue, 2014-03-11 at 04:27 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > The idea is to allow config file divergence via the alternatives system as
> > that already provides us with a commandline tool and some structure to
> > build on. We'd still have to write a few pieces to complete
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> The idea is to allow config file divergence via the alternatives system as
> that already provides us with a commandline tool and some structure to
> build on. We'd still have to write a few pieces to complete the picture
> but it seemed to be a better starting point than
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
> At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products desired to have
> divergent configuration was briefly touched on. On Thursday, a few FPC
> members had a brainstorming session about it and on Friday, sgallagh and
> that brainstorming continued with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> /etc/somefile.conf is a [soft|hard]link that points to one of:
>
> /etc/packagename.conf/default/somefile.conf
> /etc/packagename.conf/cloud/somefile.conf
> /etc/packagename.conf/server/somefile.conf
> /etc/packagename.con
On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 13:25 -0600, Gabriel Ramirez wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 12:44 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> >
> > I'd rather see us handle things this way:
> >
> > fedora-release Requires: fedora-release-variant
> >
> > fedora-release-$PR
On 10 March 2014 16:46, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 11:31 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > > And I think those subpackages probably _should_ conflict, don't you?
> > >
> >
> > Depends. Sgallagh had a desire to mark that a particular system
> > implemented multiple products
On Mon, 2014-03-10 at 11:31 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > And I think those subpackages probably _should_ conflict, don't you?
> >
>
> Depends. Sgallagh had a desire to mark that a particular system
> implemented multiple products (ie server that also had workstation
> installed). I'm not s
On 03/10/2014 06:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> That makes sense to me (although maybe there should be a special case for
> F20 -> Fedora Workstation to make migration easier?).
A close enough heuristic should be to look if the user has gnome-shell
installed and install the Workstation config pack
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> It may be that vanilla alternatives is unsuitable but we want something
> alternatives-like (an external tool that updates the config file) rather
> than something based on rpm metadata (Conflicts which causes you to have
> either one or th
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 2) If we allow switching between products, we probably have to treat
> the entire Product configuration of a package as a single unit.
ok.
> Edits to somefile.conf would change whatever's on the other end of the
> link. The alternative
My reasoning is that I think it should be easy to turn a Fedora Cloud
deployment into a Fedora Server
I'd like to see a concrete driver for that goal. I mean, how would that
be different than installing the role infrastructure?
The overlap between Server and Cloud is an interesting topic b
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 03:16:31PM -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > The idea is to allow config file divergence via the alternatives system as
>
> Will this handle user customization? IME alternatives is not geared to
> handle config fil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2014 03:58 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Kevin Fenzi
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:09:43 -0700 Toshio Kuratomi
>> wrote:
>>
What will fedup updates of Fedora 20 look like? Would there
be a flag, e.g. -
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:09:43 -0700
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
>> > What will fedup updates of Fedora 20 look like? Would there be a
>> > flag, e.g. --product cloud/workstation/server? If not specified do
>> > we fail, or is there a default?
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2014 03:16 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi
> wrote:
>> The idea is to allow config file divergence via the alternatives
>> system as
>
> Will this handle user customization? IME alternatives is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2014 03:25 PM, Gabriel Ramirez wrote:
> On 03/10/2014 12:44 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>> I'd rather see us handle things this way:
>>
>> fedora-release Requires: fedora-release-varia
On 03/10/2014 12:44 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'd rather see us handle things this way:
fedora-release Requires: fedora-release-variant
fedora-release-$PRODUCT[1] Provides: fedora-release-variant
The first fedora-release-$PRODUCT package insta
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> The idea is to allow config file divergence via the alternatives system as
Will this handle user customization? IME alternatives is not geared to
handle config files, customizable shell scripts, etc.
cheers,
m
--
martin.langh...@gma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2014 02:31 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> On Mar 10, 2014 11:09 AM, "Matthew Miller"
> mailto:mat...@fedoraproject.org>>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:09:43AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
What will fedup updates of Fedora 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2014 02:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:09:43AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> What will fedup updates of Fedora 20 look like? Would there be
>>> a flag, e.g. --product cloud/workstation/server? If not
>>> specifie
On Mar 10, 2014 11:09 AM, "Matthew Miller" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:09:43AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > What will fedup updates of Fedora 20 look like? Would there be a flag,
> > > e.g. --product cloud/workstation/server? If not specified do we fail,
or
> > > is there a defaul
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:08:40PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:00:25 -0700
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > Perhaps spins should also specify a product identifier. Maybe they
> > could have the ability to specify an existing products' identifier if
> > they are merely a vari
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:09:43AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > What will fedup updates of Fedora 20 look like? Would there be a flag,
> > e.g. --product cloud/workstation/server? If not specified do we fail, or
> > is there a default?
> The default should be whatever product was installed ont
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:00:25 -0700
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Perhaps spins should also specify a product identifier. Maybe they
> could have the ability to specify an existing products' identifier if
> they are merely a variant set of packages top an existing product as
> well.
But they aren't p
On Mar 10, 2014 10:22 AM, "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:09:43 -0700
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > > What will fedup updates of Fedora 20 look like? Would there be a
> > > flag, e.g. --product cloud/workstation/server? If not specified do
> > > we fail, or is there a default?
>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:22:30AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > The default should be whatever product was installed onto the system
> > originally. Going from Fedora 20 to a Product in F21 is probably a
> > one-off but I'm not sure what that should look like. I could be
> > totally wrong but I
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 10:09:43 -0700
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > What will fedup updates of Fedora 20 look like? Would there be a
> > flag, e.g. --product cloud/workstation/server? If not specified do
> > we fail, or is there a default?
> >
> > Or is this getting too far ahead of things?
> >
> The
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:40:29AM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products desired to have
> > divergent configuration was briefly touched on. On Thursday, a few FPC
> > members had a brainsto
On Mar 10, 2014, at 10:10 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> At last week's FESCo meeting, the fact that Products desired to have
> divergent configuration was briefly touched on. On Thursday, a few FPC
> members had a brainstorming session about it and on Friday, sgallagh and
> that brainstorming co
48 matches
Mail list logo
