On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 03:06:49AM +0100, Martin Bähr wrote: > Excerpts from Michael K. Johnson's message of 2014-03-25 22:08:44 +0100: > > 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?
Well, in that case, yes. > > If we do that, then we can't version conary independently > > from Fedora as part of a platform. > > can you explain what that means? My point is that we don't want to ask for Conary to be included in Fedora without being integrated into process. Right now, when we're outside the process, we can fix Conary bugs that impact this platform like CNY-3852 directly in our platform. If this project turns out to be interesting to the Fedora community, then great. But please don't start the process of contributing a Conary RPM to Fedora without that. > 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. No, it really doesn't make it much eassier. Don't be too glib about doing things in postinstall scripts; you can't muck about with either tool's database while the tool itself is running... I understand your desire to make the adoption process easier. Please let's walk before we run. :) > 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. Maybe. Not necessarily, though. Why don't you start by using their tools to build a "respin" ISO that has no changes, and let us know how it goes. From there, we can talk about what mechanisms will be most useful. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.foresightlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
