Bug 1573418 - [RFE] Add support for multiple %packages in kickstart
Summary: [RFE] Add support for multiple %packages in kickstart
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: anaconda
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Anaconda Maintenance Team
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-05-01 07:25 UTC by Yuval Turgeman
Modified: 2018-05-02 12:35 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: Bug


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Yuval Turgeman 2018-05-01 07:25:33 UTC
Description of problem:
In some cases, a user will want to break their %packages section into several sub sections, to allow installing sets of packages with multiple transactions.  To achieve this today, we need to install those packages in `%post --nochroot` using yum with /tmp/anaconda-yum.conf

Comment 1 Martin Kolman 2018-05-02 12:03:46 UTC
(In reply to Yuval Turgeman from comment #0)
> Description of problem:
> In some cases, a user will want to break their %packages section into
> several sub sections, to allow installing sets of packages with multiple
> transactions.  To achieve this today, we need to install those packages in
> `%post --nochroot` using yum with /tmp/anaconda-yum.conf

What is the actual usecase vs just adding the packages into a single %packages section ?

Also, I *think* we might already support multiple %packages section which we merge together and put into the installation transaction.

Comment 2 Yuval Turgeman 2018-05-02 12:33:41 UTC
Right, we do merge them into a single transaction, what I meant is add the ability to support multiple transactions for different %packages sections. Mainly, it would help installing packages that are not packaged "good enough" since the guidelines do not cover all edge cases.
To be more precise, an issue that we encountered is with selinux - some packages in %post check if selinux is enabled with /sbin/selinuxenabed, but even if it is enabled, but no policy is loaded, then some selinux utilities (semanage etc) fail to even start.  So the thing that we discussed is to add the right dependency on selinux-policy-targeted, but since there are many policies out there, the maintainers don't think they should add this, so we were a little stuck building our layered product until the hack in the description which enabled us to have a working base system in one transaction, and add our bits on top of it in %post.
Sorry for the long comment :)

Comment 3 Yuval Turgeman 2018-05-02 12:35:32 UTC
You can see bug 1563737 and bug 1570831 for the discussions we had about this


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.