On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >As package maintainers we all make technical decisions which have > >significant impact on our users every day - whether that's in the choice > >of defaults, choice of build flags, or whatever. Honestly delivering as > >modules-vs-non-modules is a completely trivial issue compared to most of > >the stuff I spend time on. If "yum install X" still works most people > >just don't care about the RPM/dnf/repo mechanics behind that. > > Except it works only half way. The installation works. Later, > dependencies are broken. Upgrades are broken. "yum remove X" does > not undo the action completely. > > The main issue is: user just enabled a module without doing it > explicitly. The user needs to know how to handle modules in order to > recover. I never expect "yum remove X" to be the inverse of "yum install X". DNF's magical leaf tracking makes it a bit more so, but not exactly. So, I don't think we should make that a very high priority concern (although if we can improve it, so much the better). Upgrades need to work, though. And they need to work regardless of whether we ban default modules or not. So, given that, I'm not _really_ seeing big differences in practice for the user beteen these two proposals, and the one (no default streams) negates one of the whole intended advantages of the entire thing. What am I missing? -- 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
