Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > My intention was to provide some scope to the problem, because it > seemed that a lot of alternatives being floated were not seeing some > of the more subtle cases that we were trying to address. However, the > biggest problem is that nearly every email to the list has been > started with a "Begging the Question" Fallacy. People have started > from the premise that "Modularity is Bad" and all of the rest of the > conversation has continued from there. I'd like to provide an > opportunity for us as a community to *constructively* state our > grievances with Modularity. The fundamental root cause of some of the > miscommunication is, I believe, that Modularity has problems and that > people have assumed that they are fundamental and unfixable. Your framing here precludes a complete redesign, and that option needs to be on the table for any real progress in communication and trust to be made. If others have "begged" that "modularity is bad", you have done the same for "modularity is good". > 2. Packages moved out of traditional Fedora and into a default module > stream are not available to the non-modular buildroot. [3] > > 3. Insufficient guidelines and rules have resulted in some modules > being shipped in a state that makes it difficult or impossible to > build other software for the distribution. In particular, the 'ant' > and 'maven' modules have default streams that own the namespace of > several of their dependencies that have been configured for private > use rather than public to the rest of the distrtibution. [4] 2 and 3 together, with some other factors, create a situation that there's no incentive for leaf packages to expose their dependencies to the core distribution. This results in both unnecessary duplication of work that could have been shared, and bloat (because we didn't need all the different versions of any particular package foo) that costs not just storage and builder time but also effort to monitor security-wise. (You can measure this in many different ways. For instance: does an ursine package exist? Is it usable? How many modules have a duplicate of it? How many modules have a newer version of it? etc.) Thanks, --Robbie
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
