Lukas Ruzicka wrote:
> 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.
+1 to all of the above.
> 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.
Indeed, this is a real issue.
I think what needs to happen is that the people who allowed this to happen
get voted out of FESCo, at least if they still refuse to act on the mailing
list feedback. They no longer seem to have a majority behind them, if they
even ever did. But for that to happen, we need to have people actually
running for FESCo and taking a clear position against forced Modularity
(i.e., either make Modularity fully optional as proposed in this thread or
axe it entirely, no third option). Democracy can only possibly work if there
is an actual choice of candidates with non-uniform positions. In the last
few elections, pretty much all the candidates uniformly claimed that
Modularity was great and the way to go, only a few (like Miro) had some
reservations about it (but still did not dare actually declaring themselves
AGAINST Modularity in the election campaign – Miro's proposal in this thread
definitely goes the right way though).
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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
