#7499 New variant subpackages for fedora-release
Closed: Fixed 3 years ago by syeghiay. Opened 4 years ago by mattdm.

Proposed change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Label_Our_Variants

Right now, we have -atomichost, -cloud, -server, and -workstation. This change would add:


and possibly also


Metadata Update from @mohanboddu:
- Issue tagged with: changes, f29

4 years ago

@mattdm I am wondering about these changes in light of the deliverables list that I am automating.

For example here is Workstation today:

VARIANT="Workstation Edition"

How would JAM (which is a Lab variant today) or Astronomy in the above?

I basically want to be sure that what we call things remains consistent. I've been talking to @mohanboddu about some of this already because a couple of our deliverables don't have a user-friendly name by default - and I'd want our names to be consistent product-wide.

"Jam" is kind of the most awkward example, but I would expect that this would look like:

PRETTY_NAME="Fedora 29 (Jam)"

Robotics Suite would look like:

PRETTY_NAME="Fedora 29 (Robotics Suite)"
VARIANT="Robotics Suite"

and the KDE Plasma Desktop would look like:

PRETTY_NAME="Fedora 29 (KDE Plasma Desktop)"
VARIANT="KDE Plasma Desktop"

(or maybe VARIANT_ID=kde-plasma).

As we discussed in person, I don't think it's needed to keep straight whether something is a Lab or a Spin at the os-release file level.

Metadata Update from @syeghiay:
- Issue set to the milestone: Fedora 29 Beta

4 years ago

Releng acknowledges this change.

We will update Fedora Release package to support it.

Metadata Update from @kellin:
- Issue tagged with: change-ack

4 years ago

Awesome! I was looking at doing it myself in https://pagure.io/fork/mattdm/fedora-release, but got bogged down with the kinda-crazy lua. It's a bit frustrating because there's a lot of repetition, but so many special cases. For example, Atomic Host has packagename fedora-release-atomichost, but VARIANT_ID of atomic.host (with a .). Server and Workstation have special cases in the %post script. Etc.

@kellin Did you get a chance to work on this, or do you want to kick it back to me?

@mattdm I can give a hand, I'm doing a bunch of other changes around here too

@pbroboinson That would be awesome. As I mentioned above, I had gotten started on it myself, and then got over-ambitious trying to clean up the lua, and made the whole thing worse. I think it's probably best for this go-round to just live with a lot of copy-pasted code, because there are two many little fiddly variations to neatly organize everything into reusable functions.

@mattdm I'm working to get the tarfile bits merged in and once that's landed I'll do the changes on top of that and submit a PR for all to review there. I think the lua improvements can be on top of that.

Thanks @pbrobinson — and @dustymabe for the typo correction :)

@pbrobinson , will this make Beta Freeze on Aug 28? Please advise.

Metadata Update from @syeghiay:
- Issue assigned to pbrobinson

3 years ago

I have a PR at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-release/pull-request/20

Note that I've built these and they seem to be Fine™ but I haven't actually installed them on any spins.


Metadata Update from @pbrobinson:
- Assignee reset

3 years ago

Metadata Update from @pbrobinson:
- Issue assigned to mattdm

3 years ago

@pbrobinson , will this make Beta Freeze on Aug 28? Please advise.

PLEASE read the feature owner, I offered to help out, not do all the work!

To answer the question, yeah, I think it will be ready, although just barely, and variants may need freeze exceptions to add the packages, which was not my intention. (But my fault, so, there we go.)

This has been completed. Closing.

Metadata Update from @syeghiay:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

3 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.