On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 9:07:51 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:05 AM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:26:31 PM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > > given that we're talking about the need to migrate defaults > > > > > > > > To clarify, that has not been decided, and a prominent option mentioned > > in > > this thread is the option to simply require that there is a non-modular > > package. > > > > > > > I think we can pretty much guarantee that's not going to happen. > Unfortunately, modularization is a one-way road, given how modularity > is implemented in DNF and how our distribution policies are currently > structured. > > It just means that people need to *really* think of the consequences > of modularizing content, because there's basically no going back after > that. We have no escape hatches or transition mechanisms to go from > modular to non-modular variants of the same RPMs. That's not what the proposal is. The proposal is to require a non-modular version, an "ursine package", for modular packages, instead of default modules. -- 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
