On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 2:39 PM Tom Hughes <tom@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 25/04/2019 19:29, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 04:23, Nicolas Mailhot > > <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > Le mercredi 24 avril 2019 à 16:14 -0400, Stephen Gallagher a écrit : > > > > > > FWIW, things should *not* be getting harder. Some folks just jumped > > > the gun and made changes they weren't supposed to (yet) and now the > > > Modularity team has a lot of fires to put out and very few resources > > > with which to do it. > > > > That’s not overly nice to the people that “jumped the gun”. They’re > > using modularity exactly as it was designed. Tragedy of the commons is > > an entirely predictible outcome, of something without a built-in > > sharing strategy. > > > > > > That is my view of the matter also. There are a lot of packagers with > > way too many packages... and we have too many dependencies... so any > > tool which allows for that to be 'easier' is going to start an avalanche > > of packages getting moved out of the 'ursine commons'. As someone said > > yesterday to me, it is like showing that you can make a better living as > > a farmer using industrial farming techniques and then complaining that > > the small old-fashioned farmer no longer exists... or that a lot of > > people quit being farmers because those who used the industrial methods > > took over the market. > > How does modularity make it easier though? > > It seems to me that it does the exact opposite - instead of having > one version of each package to maintain I now have multiple versions > to worry about! I mean obviously I could convert to a module and > only maintain one version but what would be the point? There would > still be extra metadata relating to the module to maintain anyway. > I probably agree with you, based on my own experience alone. However, I think arguing against modularity is a distraction from the problem at hand. Can't we just concede that modularity benefits some, but not all, packagers? Fighting with the "Modularity team", whoever they are (a SIG? a mailing list?, a team at RedHat? ... I don't really know who they are) is only going to divide us and distract from the real issue. This isn't their fault. The packaging process is the responsibility of FESCo. It is their responsibility to ensure that the packaging processes in place are adequate to enable packagers to contribute, regardless of what's going on with any specific subset of packagers. But, it's clear that the current processes are breaking, getting more burdensome, and require more education, tooling, documentation, and general fine-tuning. As a result, many packagers are getting "left behind". Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places, but I haven't seen much in terms of what FESCo is specifically doing to address this "left behind" issue within the packaging process. Is there a place where they regularly document what they are doing from a process engineering and oversight perspective, and receive community feedback on what they are doing? I think that could be helpful, but I don't know where to look (if it exists). _______________________________________________ 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
