On 2 August 2017 at 10:50, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 09:54:22AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > Do you think that this problem is as bad if we overload / replace /
> > enhance comps groups and the @ syntax? Or do we need to find a
> > different character? (Uh, I guess % is sitting out there....)
> Again, if my scripts are using the @ symbol, I am expecting that I am going
> to get the @ syntax. As can be seen when the comps groups get broken in a
> main release, there are people who rely on it for deploying the system and
> expect that certain choices are 'made'. I would go with either a new symbol
> or keyword.
Even if, as in my imagination, we could make modules behave as a
superset of comps groups?
The issue here is again existing expectations and interaction. If the comps superset doesn't replace the existing set of tools, then you aren't going to see howls of anguish when people run into this the release or 2 after you have put it in place. If my kickstart @base or @printing doesn't change my box to be from what the rest of the scripts are expecting to set up and configure.. I don't see a problem.
If however a @printing sets up a configured module which tries to discover printers and other things because the printermodule for home use does that.. then my enterprise security guy is going to have words with me for deploying it.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
