On 10/08/2015 08:08 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:37:32PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >> Maybe we're trying to do too much. >> >> I suppose it's a question of choosing to do something which from a >> software engineering perspective is not the best practice or not >> including a package at all. I'd certainly prefer to see a somewhat >> smaller well-engineered system than open the doors to packages with >> their own versions of dependencies, each with their own set of bugs. > > The thing is, this is only one aspect of the quality of the packaging — > and let alone bugs and problems in the code itself, which are usually > even bigger in terms of user impact. So, making *this* particular facet > the deciding factor doesn't quite seem right to me. Me either, but of course I didn't say that. IMO it's necessary but not sufficient. > I think the *general* idea, of having a smaller-well engineered core is > a good one. It's just.... really hard to define exactly what that is, > let alone to do the practical work of untangling dependencies. But > that's basically what the "Fedora Modularization" initiative is all > about. I accept that point. > From an unrelated practical point of view: consider that the metadata > pulled down so DNF can operate is basically the same size as the entire > (compressed) Fedora Cloud Base image. It'd be very nice to not have > that overhead (but still have wider package set available when you want > it). It certainly would, but fixing the DNF metadata problem is a whole 'nother ball of wax! Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
