On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:15 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:07:44PM -0600, Al Stone wrote: > > -- And the one question I have to add on to Christopher's wonderful > > list: I have a package where upstream releases about once a month, > > and each new release must by definition be backwards compatible > > (acpica-tools, specifically). I can think of no scenario where a > > module provides value to me or end-users; in fact, using anything > > other than the most recent causes problems. Do I have to create and > > maintain a module for this package anyway? Or are the defaults > > robust enough that a package can remain a package without touching > > modularity at all? The answer to this is completely unclear to me -- > > what I've read seems to imply that I must create a module definition > > regardless. > > > This actually seems like the ideal case for a single stream -- instead of > maintaining rawhide, f29, f28, epel7, you'd just maintain "latest", > and that would get build into all of these releases simultaneously. > I still don't get why this subset case requires all the extra module goop? Couldn't we just have fedpkg have an "fedpkg build --all-releases" switch to just trigger on the same commit for all releases? -- 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 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
