Dne 25. 04. 19 v 20:37 Tom Hughes napsal(a): > 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? Converting to module does not mean maintaining one version. It means that you have to maintain the one version on multiple versions of Fedora, where previously this was not needed. E.g. if there is new OpenSSL in Rawhide and Ruby needs to be modified somehow, then the modification has to be compatible with older Fedoras, whereas previously you would do that change just for Rawhide. TBH, keeping modules alive is much harder then it was without modules. Not even mentioning the possibility of having multiple versions ... Vít > There would > still be extra metadata relating to the module to maintain anyway. > > Tom > _______________________________________________ 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
