On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 14:14 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > 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. Modularity also required changes to these things, and more significant changes. The fact that we're binary focused isn't relevant. What Gentoo has done isn't related to where or how the software is compiled, it's related to the repository and package metadata. > We'd certainly need a whole *new* MBS equivalent Why? > , and there's surely a ton of "unknown unknowns" lurking as well. Sure. > And then all of that would get us to... sort of where we are now? Where that would get us to is a system that very similar to the "traditional" RPM system. This means that packagers and users will more easily be able to learn how to use it. There won't be extra build systems, dual spec and yaml files, or two kinds of packages. It will all just be RPMs that are only minorly different than the RPMs we have today. The only difference is that there would be a new Stream: field in the spec file, in addition to the NEVRA we have today. So NEVRA becomes NESVRA. Making a system that is familiar to packagers and users is advantageous for adoption. > Basically the same thing as with Modularity's "virtual repositories" > approach with different tradeoffs? No, every RPM would be in the same repos we make today. There would just be more RPMs of the same package available in the repo than 1. There would be 1 per stream (or more - Gentoo actually allows many package versions per stream to be stable at a time, which is actually their real solution to "parallel availability". Their slot is really just a way to formalize a "set of package versions that are API compatible", which is what we call a "stream"). > 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. I don't think that's the message you've been sending. > 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. It's worse than rude to say that I told people that _they're_ the problem. I said no such thing. This is dishonest of you. > If that's demoralizing... well, I don't know what to to tell you. Your writing has been dismissive, dishonest, insulting, and belittling. > I want to support people doing things and exploring and contributing. Your writing is not consistent with this statement.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 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
