On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:58 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 03:02:47PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > > Correct, this is about ensuring that all Fedora installations have >> > > access to the modules we build, but there's no change to how >> > > they're stored on mirrors, etc. >> > Ok. Do we ever foresee the hybrid repository approach happening in Fedora? >> >> The hybrid approach is "things can be built as modules, but tagged into >> the base", right? What problems does this solve vs. allowing modules to >> be used as dependencies and build deps? >> > > I think the "hybrid approach" he's referring to is having modular and non-modular RPMs living in the same directory structure. I don't see that being needed in Fedora at this point. That's what I was referring to. I would agree it isn't *required* in Fedora. I think it's still worth exploring though. > If he *does* mean the above, I think that's going to be solved by Ursa Major (long explanation available on request), but that's probably an F30+ feature. And yeah, that will basically be allowing modules to be a dep for non-modular content. I think we need this too, but it's separate from what I was asking about. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/NYPBT6E3KIUUFUQXE4RQ7VOUJC4ZMKX6/
