2014-03-10 17:10 GMT+01:00 Toshio Kuratomi <[email protected]>:
> 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 sgallagh, adamw, tflink, notting, and
> myself.
Do we have *actual* use cases? Not just "some package might need to", but
"$package needs to diverge in $config and obvious/simple approaches like
comps aren't sufficient".
Without such use cases, if the recommendation to use alternatives(8) stems
from case 3 "Want to have a single tool that can switch default configs
per-package", I feel fairly confident in just rejecting that theoretical
use case. (IOW, a Server would still be a Server if workstation is
co-installed, and Cloud would still be using the Cloud-specific defaults if
the full Server package set is installed.)
(The numbered cases 1 and 2 are still necessary, but this proposal really
does nothing for them besides "write some code"--we can always do that, not
necessarily invoking alternatives(8).)
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
