Excerpts from Michael K. Johnson's message of 2014-03-25 22:08:44 +0100: > > looking from a fedora perspective, i think this is exactly what's happening. > > now if that's true, wouldn't it make sense to treat conary as such and > > produce > > a conary rpm package that one can just install like any other rpm, just like > > yum is an rpm package now. > > > > a user would then install the conary rpm, which either in its postinstall > > script or at the first invocation of conary would then run a script that > > populates the database and runs genmodel. > > > > and once we have that it would be possible to just use fedoras anaconda > > without > > modification. we could effectively just build a respin using fedoras tools. > > We might eventually get to that point. But there are some practical > issues. For example, we're trying to provide an entirely unmodified > Fedora.
wouldn't that include at least conary? > If we do that, then we can't version conary independently > from Fedora as part of a platform. can you explain what that means? > And Conary having a complete > database is very different from a yum repository. of course, but that database we already have... > So there would be no point in it without widespread interest in adopting this > in the Fedora community. i don't get your meaning here. i think having conary as an rpm is a prerequisite to enable widespread adoption. but i meant even for fl:3, having conary as an rpm will make it easier to convert a fedora install into foresight. there are of course limitations, as we can't deal with additional repositories a user may have that we have not imported. but in general i was thinking that packaging conary as an rpm and building fedora respin ISOs would be a good way to enable foresight installations. this is not even aiming at adoption by the fedora community, but about enabling us to use fedora tools for the parts that we don't know how to do yet (like making an iso) making rpms is well documented, so it should be possible for anyone among us to get that going. likewise building ISOs. for the initial version we can even skip genmodel and build ISOs that match a known system-model of our design. and if we want we could even stop there. adopting an existing fedora install is a nice feature, but traditionally i don't think it is to much to expect people to install from our ISOs to get foresight. to get people to use fl:3 we need install images, and it looks to me that going the conary.rpm fedora-respin-iso way is easier than trying to figure out new ways of doing things. the question for me really is, how can we get foresight into the hands of other people without any effort on their part (other than (re)installing) > But I don't think that the value of the work we > are doing depends on that happening. of course not. greetings, martin. -- eKita - the online platform for your entire academic life hackerspace beijing - http://qike.info -- chief engineer eKita.co pike programmer pike.lysator.liu.se caudium.net societyserver.org BLUG secretary beijinglug.org foresight developer foresightlinux.org realss.com unix sysadmin Martin Bähr working in china http://societyserver.org/mbaehr/ _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.foresightlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
