On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 09:32:15PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> This has been tried by AltLinux, they were using Group tag to organize >> packages into small repositories and after all they went back for one >> big repository because of cross-dependencies, questions where to put >> what and probably other problems. > > The modularity tech covers the cross-dependencies problem in a new way. > For some things, it's pretty clear that "yep, that's a module" is the > way to go. (Like, the sort of stuff already building in modules — > databases, webservers, language runtimes.) > What "new way" is this? My examination of this indicates that there's *nothing* for fixing this, and this _will_ blow up in the Server WG's face if you're not even going to bother properly handling RPM and modules concurrently and multiple modules together. Modularity sounds like a good idea, but I am not yet convinced that you've figured out some way to make coarse dependencies work, unless there's some magical use of relocatable RPMs or something like that to ensure everything is namespaced on install. Frankly, I don't know how modules are any different from composition groups from the user point of view. Yes, we have the thing with messing with the build environment and package filters in the module source configuration, but I'm not sure how you'll deal with conflicting builds on the same system. In addition, I do not believe that distributors of third party software will find modularity useful as-is. Also, the ref/versioning stuff is confusing. Finally, what the heck are we supposed to do about non x86_64, or even bringing in new architectures (RISC-V, MIPS, etc.)? -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
