Re: [modularity] Bringing order to the confusing module stream and profile names

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 1:58 AM Alexander Bokovoy <abokovoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This split is very artificial. In practice, at least for first four use
> cases you actually want first three to be available always because they
> are used by various parts of the code (especially by the fourth one).
>
> It is probably better to show this with FreeIPA. In RHEL8 beta we did
> several profiles:
>  - client, only providing a bare minimum of FreeIPA client packages
>    (freeipa-client, essentially)
>  - server, only providing basic FreeIPA master without DNS and trust to
>    AD support
>  - dns, which is server profile + freeipa-server-dns package which pulls
>    in bind and bind-dyndb-ldap
>  - adtrust, which is server + freeipa-server-trust-ad package which
>    pulls in Samba and other packages needed to configure IPA master to
>    trust Active Directory configuration, including FreeIPA plugins to
>    allow management of FreeIPA by users from Active Directory
>
> If you are only interested in client-side operations, you'd install
> client profile. If you need full support, you'd install dns+adtrust
> which will bring in all individual packages you shouldn't worry about.
>
> The difference between a profile and a normal package dependency is that
> in profile I can encode use-case specific knowledge for a set of
> dependencies which span packages that could cater to multiple use cases.
>

Sure, it was a contrived example. I was mostly trying to demonstrate
that use-case based names for profiles must always be the preferred
approach (which FreeIPA did perfectly). The open question in this
thread has to do with "what do we call it when there's no obvious
fit?". We've been using "default" up to this point, but that's a
terribly confusing name. We've suggested "common" as an alternative
that doesn't carry the implication that it must be (or automatically
is) the default installed stream.

But I don't want to start that particular bikeshed; I wanted to
explain the scope of the problem and see if we had agreement on that
being one of the concepts that deserves a unified name.
_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux