Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/5/19 1:17 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I'd like to gather a constructive list of the actual use-cases that
> you feel Modularity is causing problems for, with the following
> stipulations: Any *subjective* problems will be ignored. "I think
> writing YAML is harder than writing a spec file" is an example of a
> subjective opinion. Similarly, "change inevitably results in some
> learning curve" is a basic maxim of innovation and is not in and of
> itself an argument not to change. "Modularity requires me to write
> both a spec file and a YAML file, thereby increasing the total work"
> is an *objective* observation (and a valid one; I'm going to include
> it below in my own starter list). If you aren't sure if it's
> objective, a useful question is "is it quantitatively measurable?"
> (AKA "Can I assign a number to it and see that number increase or
> decrease when changing something about the implementation?")

I find the global exclusion of packages built but not shipped in an enabled
module baffling and makes it very hard to provide updates/alternatives to
those packages.  For example:

- I installed a RHEL8.0 system and my kickstart requested "koan" to be installed.

- koan is provided by the rhn-tools module, and so that got enabled

- rhn-tools builds a very old version of koan that comes from the cobbler
package.  But it doesn't ship cobbler (or cobbler-web).

- As a cobbler packager I want to test out the latest version of cobbler built
from my COPR - so I enable that and run:

# dnf install cobbler
Copr repo for cobbler owned by orion             695  B/s | 1.9 kB     00:02
No match for argument: cobbler
Error: Unable to find a match

WAT?

dnf -v is no help, neither is --debugsolver as near as I can tell.

Beyond the horrible UX above, this seems so counter to the idea that we are
building a platform upon which others can build and extend.  In this case I
can simply disable the rhn-tools module, but what if I wanted something else
from that module?

Hopefully the UX is better in Fedora (I haven't tested), but I believe the
exclusion property remains.

This is also creating challenges for CentOS to re-add missing -devel packages
(https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2019-November/018082.html)
though I hear whispers of a fix in the works so I am hopeful...

-- 
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems          720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office             FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane                       orion@xxxxxxxx
Boulder, CO 80301                 https://www.nwra.com/


<<attachment: smime.p7s>>

_______________________________________________
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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux