Colin Walters wrote:
That would mean that if we wanted to enable a new service by default,
admins wouldn't get it on upgrades.
… which is how it should be. I don't want upgrades to mess with my set of
enabled services. (E.g., I found it extremely rude from firewalld to enable
itself by
Adam Williamson wrote:
Very much +1. Putting it in kickstarts is a worse tying problem than
putting it in a package: it ties this configuration mechanism to a
system for creating deliverables, which is what kickstart is. We need to
be moving away from having configuration in kickstarts, not
Am 21.02.2014 23:30, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Colin Walters wrote:
That would mean that if we wanted to enable a new service by default,
admins wouldn't get it on upgrades.
… which is how it should be. I don't want upgrades to mess with my set of
enabled services. (E.g., I found it extremely
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
should be a absolute non starter, many installs happen interactively
and would never get the file
At least 2 possible solutions:
(a) Write the file in Anaconda (at least for non-live installs, live
installs can and should get it from the spin kickstart), add a spoke to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:27:41 -0600
Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote:
Propose the unit file be packaged.
* Releng does not want this in fedora-release.
Not true, just not convinced its the best place for it. If it turns out
it really is the best place
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:27:41 -0600
Jon jdisn...@gmail.com wrote:
Propose the unit file be packaged.
* Releng does not want this in fedora-release.
Not true, just not convinced its the best place for it. If
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
i think limiting to systemd is wrong. maybe the package should be
fedora-config-foo it could put other config snippets, or pull in
packages for the experience of the product.
Yes, we could potentially obsolete the
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
i think limiting to systemd is wrong. maybe the package should be
fedora-config-foo it could put other config snippets, or pull in packages
for the
On Wed, 19.02.14 18:31, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
i think limiting to systemd is wrong. maybe the package should be
fedora-config-foo it could put other config snippets, or pull in
packages for the
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
I think it's perfectly fine to have them conflict.
You didn't reply to the part of my mail where I was describing the
Workstation on a Server case. Are you saying that you do not believe
this case is valid? Or that such
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
I think it's perfectly fine to have them conflict.
You didn't reply to the part of my mail where I was describing the
Workstation on a Server case.
As far as two (or more) fedora-presets' being installed at once, I
would say we allow the user to resolve the problem via .rpmnew
The implication is users would have to pick a -config/-preset package
and then e.g. adjust things
This only works if the preset file has the same name across all the
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 15:12 -0600, Jon wrote:
As far as two (or more) fedora-presets' being installed at once, I
would say we allow the user to resolve the problem via .rpmnew
The implication is users would have to pick a -config/-preset package
and then e.g. adjust things
This only works
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 18:03 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-19 at 15:12 -0600, Jon wrote:
As far as two (or more) fedora-presets' being installed at once, I
would say we allow the user to resolve the problem via .rpmnew
The implication is users would have to pick a
On 2014-02-14 09:25, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:02:47PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
That seems reasonable, and in that case, something like fedora-presets
and fedora-workstation-presets, etc., seems appropriate, and the
corresponding release package could pull them in.
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 07:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Very much +1. Putting it in kickstarts is a worse tying problem than
putting it in a package: it ties this configuration mechanism to a
system for creating deliverables, which is what kickstart is. We need to
be moving away from
On 2014-02-18 08:31, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-18 at 07:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Very much +1. Putting it in kickstarts is a worse tying problem than
putting it in a package: it ties this configuration mechanism to a
system for creating deliverables, which is what
Propose the unit file be packaged.
* Releng does not want this in fedora-release.
* Going in kickstart files is not happy.
We could call the package:
fedora-systemd-defaults-{base,workstation,server}
spins would call the file:
fedora-systemd-[spin]
remix would call the file:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:31:31 -0500
Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 13:44 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:39:40 +0100
Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
Based on these arguments, I'd like to
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 02:30:47AM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
It really depends on how much it changes, I really do not like
updating fedora-release very much.
Its something that defines the release, which is done when the release
is out, we did need to make changes recently to support
Matthew Miller wrote:
That seems reasonable, and in that case, something like fedora-presets
and fedora-workstation-presets, etc., seems appropriate, and the
corresponding release package could pull them in.
What about my proposal to drop the preset directly onto the file system (but
in /etc
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at
wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
That seems reasonable, and in that case, something like
fedora-presets
and fedora-workstation-presets, etc., seems appropriate, and the
corresponding release package could pull them in.
What
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 15:22:26 +,
Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
That would mean that if we wanted to enable a new service by default,
admins wouldn't get it on upgrades. Which may be fine with the
traditional rpm-on-client-side installs.
I don't think that has to be the
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 04:02:47PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
That seems reasonable, and in that case, something like fedora-presets
and fedora-workstation-presets, etc., seems appropriate, and the
corresponding release package could pull them in.
What about my proposal to drop the preset
Hi,
With current changes in Fedora regarding Fedora.next and productization
of Fedora distribution I would like to suggest following change.
Package systemd ships file 90-default.preset [1] (full path:
/usr/lib/systemd/system-preset/90-default.preset) which contains rules
for command
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:53:13 +0100
Václav Pavlín vpav...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
...snip...
Based on these arguments, I'd like to propose to move this file to
the fedora-release package (or elsewhere, if you can suggest better
place). This package is specific to Fedora distribution as well
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Václav Pavlín vpav...@redhat.com wrote:
Package systemd ships file 90-default.preset [1] (full path:
/usr/lib/systemd/system-preset/90-default.preset) which contains rules for
command 'systemctl preset NAME'.
snip
Based on these arguments, I'd like to
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:53:13 +0100
Václav Pavlín vpav...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
...snip...
Based on these arguments, I'd like to propose to move this file to
the fedora-release package (or elsewhere, if you can suggest
On Thu, 13.02.14 17:40, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
Based on these arguments, I'd like to propose to move this file to
the fedora-release package (or elsewhere, if you can suggest better
place). This package is specific to Fedora distribution as well and
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Václav Pavlín vpav...@redhat.com
wrote:
Currently this file is part of systemd package which doesn't seem to
be
right. It contains default values specific for distribution, is not
part
of systemd upstream repository and is maintained downstream.
Right,
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:24:30AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Well, if the products want to diverge on what to start/enable, we could
do this I suppose. It's been suggested that we look at having a
fedora-release for each product (with deps on those things the product
advertises as part of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:39:40 +0100
Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Václav Pavlín vpav...@redhat.com
wrote:
Package systemd ships file 90-default.preset [1] (full path:
On Thu, 2014-02-13 at 13:44 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 17:39:40 +0100
Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
Based on these arguments, I'd like to propose to move this file to
the fedora-release package (or elsewhere, if you can suggest better
place).
I agree
Colin Walters wrote:
Right, it's a lame workaround for a lack of higher order structure
beyond set of packages.
For live images, the spin kickstarts could just drop that preset file
directly into the file system. For installers, it'd need some magic in
Anaconda though (unless we do away with
34 matches
Mail list logo
