Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

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

 



On Monday, October 14, 2019 3:16:27 AM MST Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> > and non-modular RPMs.
> > 
> > == Summary ==
> > This Change (colloquially referred to as "Ursa Prime") enables the
> > Koji build-system to include the RPM artifacts provided by module
> > default streams in the buildroot when building non-modular (or
> > "traditional") RPMs.
> > 
> > == Owner ==
> > * Name: [[User:Sgallagh| Stephen Gallagher]]
> > * Email: sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx
> > * Responsible WG: Modularity WG
> 
> 
> I have already stated this multiple times in other threads, but just so that
>  nobody claims that I have not given feedback to this change (which has
> been claimed for some other changes in a similar situation), I am going to
> state this again:
> 
> I oppose this change because I believe Miro's proposal to require all 
> packages to have a non-modular version (i.e., to ship the default stream as
>  non-modular packages) is the much better approach to the issue and makes
> this change proposal entirely moot.
> 
> To be clear, I propose the following:
> * All packages MUST have a default version in any given Fedora release.
> * The default version MUST be shipped as non-modular (not as a modular
>   default stream).
> * It follows that packages cannot be module-only.
> * This applies to ALL packages including build tools. In particular,
>   packages must not be hidden from users through constructs such as
>   buildroot-only modules or non-API packages in modules. If a package is in
> a module, no matter in what function, there MUST be a default version in
> the non-modular repository.
> * The fedora-modular repository SHOULD be disabled by default on user
>   machines, matching the current build system behavior. This also helps
>   enforcing the above policies.
> 
> I believe that the above proposal is essentially identical to Miro's 
> proposal from the other thread, which I support. The exact wording can be 
> discussed, but it is important that the essence of the proposal (module-only
>  = no go) is retained.
> 
>         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

That seems to be the best approach to this situation.

-- 
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity

_______________________________________________
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