On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:23 AM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 03:01:55PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > But wait also: can't the module just refer to the release-branch (base) > > > dist-git? Why maintain two copies? > > Well, they can. But someone needs to build it twice: once using fedpkg > > build and once using fedpkg module-build from the different repo > > (which always requires at least empty commit). > > That's kind of annoying. Can we use Freshmaker or similar to auto-build the > module? > We have stuff like that? I don't think we do. Automation for making release package builds seems to scare people here. :/ > > > [2] hey, what happened to sgallagh's "hybrid" proposal where output from > > > modules could just be *tagged into* base? That seemed perfect for cases > > > like this. > > Well, it is called UM which is stuck in the FESCo loop. > > That seems significantly more complicated to me. Ursa Major is about adding > modules to the buildroot; the "hybrid" idea was that the modular package > builds could also be tagged as "regular" builds and land in the non-modular > repo. > This proposal is completely new to me. I've never heard *anyone* talking about that. If we did that, I'd be considerably happier, since it won't break the world, and packages that we build with module tooling don't need to require modularity enablement at runtime. -- 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
