Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

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

 



On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:13:17PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> To quote you from the other ongoing thread: "The default stream for a
> package shouldn't be updated in disruptive ways in shipped releases"
> If that's the case, then what *is* the benefit of abandoning the
> non-modular version of packages, if default streams need to basically
> be maintained separately for different branches anyway? 🤔

To me, most packages would benefit from having two streams: fast and slow.
That's the essential problem I want solved anyway. (Maybe with CentOS
Streams: fast, slow, very slow.)

The "slow" version would be updated on a careful cadence with big updates
aligned with release boundaries. The fast version would be rolling latest.
And for applications, you can pick which you want.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
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