For rofiles-fuse. Eventually what we should really do is split out
the shared library from the binaries? A minimal system shouldn't need
rofiles-fuse, it's mainly for doing layered packages and that sort of
thing.
Makefile.dist-packaging seems to assume to be run under packaging/ as
"make -C packaging -f Makefile.dist-packaging rpm" so ensure the
srcdir is set correctly to point to the parent directory.
Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>
In this approach, we drop a /etc/grub.d/15_ostree file which is a
hybrid of shell/C that picks up bits from the GRUB2 library (e.g. the
block device script generation), and then calls into libostree's
GRUB2 code which knows about the BLS entries.
This is admittedly ugly. There exists another approach for GRUB2 to
learn the BLS specification. However, the spec has a few issues:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2014-July/msg00002.html
This approach also gives a bit more control to the admin via the
naming of the 15_ostree symlink; they can easily disable it:
Or reorder the ostree entries ahead of 10_linux:
Also, this approach doesn't require patches for grub2, which is an
issue with the pressure to backport (rpm-)OSTree to EL7.
The trees as shipped come with /usr/etc, which should just be labeled
as usr_t. When we do a deployment, we need to relabel the copies of
the files we're making in /etc.
SELinux support is compile and runtime optional.
The Makefile.dist-packaging lives canonically in rpm-ostree/ for now,
it's my latest hack to automate git -> (s)rpm.
Update the spec.in from current Fedora.
Colin Walters
Giuseppe Scrivano
Dusty Mabe