On 09. 10. 19 18:30, Matthew Miller wrote:
The problem is that the RHEL approach to modules only works because
RHEL is centrally developed and can be correctly coordinated to
overcome issues in the design. This is not true in Fedora, and there
doesn't seem to be allowances for this difference.
This seems *partly* fair. It's in some ways a natural consequence of Red Hat
funding the work and having to fit into RHEL release schedules. But I think
we can also get attention and work towards Fedora's needs -- especially with
8 out the door and 9 just twinkle in product management's eye.
And this is exactly the best time to stop and plan for a little and before we
implement the a very fragile workaround proposed at the beginning of the thread
just to approach the ideal state of "default modular packages behave just like
regular packages".
In RHEL, we put some packages in modules to have the ability to declare: This
module is only supported for X years, unlike the rest of RHEL.
In Fedora, we plan to maintain and treat the default modular streams the same
way we do with regular packages. We have the ability to keep them as regular
packages. This approach was clearly treated positively by the community in this
thread so far. Let's keep modularity in Fedora to do what it was promised to do:
Make it possible to install alternate versions of software. Instead, the
majority of Fedora's modules is one stream only. I seriously think that brings
no benefit to the users and it makes everything needlessly more complicated.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
