On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:53 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That was a representative example. I came up with it at 11pm after a > > long day. Don't read too much into the specifics. The point was that > > builds may require newer or older software than we have available in > > the non-modular buildroot, but don't require them at runtime. > > Yes, they do. There are many ways to solve the problem, from compat packages > trough various tag-magic to buildroot overrides in custom side tags. We have had > this problem for years and we were able to deal with it quite well. > Please let's not confuse "we have figured out how to work around it by making our packagers do a lot of tricky hacks" with "able to deal with it quite well". This is a major issue for non-expert packagers. I don't have statistics on how many people give up on a package because of this issue, but I know *I* have done so (and I'd consider myself more experienced than most people at packaging). One of the (often un- or misinformed) major arguments people keep using against Modularity is "it makes packaging harder!". This is one place where it makes things *much* easier on the packagers. It's a clear reduction in complexity. _______________________________________________ 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
