On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:15 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:08:23PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > I think I mentioned that it would be possible, as OpenPKG actually > > worked this way. > > > > The key for this would be improving the user-experience with > > interacting with source RPMs and spec files with DNF. We've optimized > > *heavily* for remote builds, but a good chunk of how Gentoo's > > mechanism works is built around supporting local permutations. We just > > don't have that fleshed out yet. > > Well, exactly. This is what I meant with my short "who is going to do that > work?" comment. Gentoo's solution is not a drop-in thing for Fedora and > would require changes to RPM, DNF, and the *significant* work of figuring > out what all this would mean in a binary-focused distribution. We'd > certainly need a whole *new* MBS equivalent, and there's surely a ton of > "unknown unknowns" lurking as well. > > And then all of that would get us to... sort of where we are now? Basically > the same thing as with Modularity's "virtual repositories" approach with > different tradeoffs? > > If someone thinks that my skepticism is wrong and that the Modularity team > is on the complete wrong path, I have no objection to anyone who wants to > work on something new solution, either as a prototype or a more detailed > proposal. Awesome! If it gets to the point where it's a viable alternative, > we can weigh those options. But the team in Fedora actually working on > Modularity today includes some pretty smart, very invested Fedora people and > I don't feel bad at all about standing up for their wanting to continue to > refine the path they've chosen and are working on. > > To me this is just like the Flatpak and Snap thing — both have some > strengths and weaknesses. I'm absolutely supportive of the effort of the > Workstation team (and Red Hat's Desktop team!) to drive that work in Fedora. > I happen to personally (and professionally) think that's good for Fedora. > But I'm _also_ happy to make room for you and whoever else to work on doing > something similar with Snap. > > If someone were to come by and say "I don't understand why you're doing all > this, when it's been solved by AppImage since 2004", I'd say the same thing > I'm telling Randy: you're welcome to work on that, but it's rude to tell the > people who are invested in building something different that _they're_ the > problem. > > If that's demoralizing... well, I don't know what to to tell you. I want to > support people doing things and exploring and contributing. That's all well and good, but you seem to be forgetting that people are actually getting *paid* to work on modularity for fedora. Any proposal for an alternative, which apparently needs to arrive at least at MVP / proof-of-concept quality before it is even *considered* as an alternative without getting called "trolling", can likely only be worked on in somebody's spare time. I don't think that's a fair requirement, and "exploring and contributing" will stay limited to RH employees if that's the case. Fabio > -- > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
