On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 07:51:57 +0200 Michal Novotny <clime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I guess I am missing something but I don't see how modularity adds > flexibility. rpm, yum repos, ansible, dnf seem to be quite flexible > even now and having that + something else on top seems to be less > flexible. I am just speaking my mind here. I'm not involved in modularity, and I'm speaking as an observer. But it seems that it would be a lot more effective to put the libraries in containers, and keep applications in rpms. That is, say there is a python container, and it contains the various formats of python, 2.6, 2.7, 3.5, 3.6, etc. Then any application that needs python just specifies the python it needs, and the OS links it with the proper library from the container when it runs. Or, gtk, with all its variations in a container, and again, applications get the version they need to run transparently. This would eliminate all the redundant library duplication that containers as they are now envisioned would entail. There would still be redundancy, but it would be the minimal set for the applications that are installed. And it would still allow the upstream of applications to specify specific libraries without worrying about variations in distributions. This doesn't address security concerns if an application upstream specifies a library that is known to be insecure or unmaintained, and it is in a container. But that's just a policy decision of a distribution as to whether they allow a library container to contain insecure versions in order to permit applications to install. Just some thoughts. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
