Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

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

 







So despite providing zero feedback here, this was voted at the modularity meeting:

* Tagging Module Defaults into non-modular repo  (sgallagh, 15:41:37)
   * AGREED: We disagree with merging default streams into the main repo
     as non-modular packages. Our approach is to implement a mechanism of
     following default streams to give people the experience they want.
     (+4 0 -0)  (asamalik, 16:07:40)

Well,
based on this discussion, pushing content in modular defaults is not the experience that people want. I have been a bit ill
for some time and before I could add my point to the discussion, everything has been more or less said.
Just for illustration, this is what I wanted to say about it:
  1. Modularity should stay away from my system until I call for it -> now it is not the case, because modularity sneaks into users' computer through modular defaults that overcome the non-modular packages. Gimp is the first such "horse" that jumps into almost everybody's desktop and they are modular without even knowing it.
  2. Modularity should provide alternative content, if I need it and when I need it. Modules should be installable only through "dnf module" command and not through the regular dnf command, so that I explicitely need to allow modularity on my system.
  3. The naming conventions of the streams should be obligatory for every module packager. So, if we decide that we want a "latest" stream, then all modules should have a "latest" stream for rolling updates. Currently, they all have various names of streams, from which I cannot tell anything. If there should be a "slow" path, then again, all modules should have a "slow" path.
  4. Non-modular Fedora must be a valid use case and remain an option.
  5. If I decide to go modular, there must be a way to go non-modular again, without breaking the system. Or, if modular is the only option, so if I go into specific streams, there must be a way to go to defaults without breaking the system. With non-modular defaults, this seems easy. With modules? I am not sure.
  6. We need to expect that once there are hundreds of modules, people will install all possible combinations and they all will need to work. I am not sure, we will be able to test something like that.
Seeing the reaction of the Modularity WG ... I do not understand how it is possible that such important decisions are taken by 4 people without any Fedora wide discussions like this. And yet, it seems a little bit that even opinions on this list will not fall on fertile grounds.

I wish the communication improved in the first place. Community means togetherness.
 
 
should aim for solution 1. if solution 2. is not negotiable by the modularity WG.

+1




--

Lukáš Růžička

FEDORA QE, RHCE

Red Hat

Purkyňova 115

612 45 Brno - Královo Pole

lruzicka@xxxxxxxxxx   

_______________________________________________
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