On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:49:06 AM MST Vít Ondruch wrote: > > 1) I don't think Modularity is about being LTS and "enterprisy". > > Lifecycle differences are not the only feature Modularity provides. > > > > I see Modularity as a tool which bridges the gap between container > > world and a packaged distribution. > > > > Without modularity we have a base system with its limitations and the > > explosion of containerized solutions which currently go through their > > teen-age phase, denying the good old known practices and reinventing > > wheels in terms of packaging, sharing, deduplication of effort and > > security audit. I must disagree. As I see it, Red Hat sees this as a potential solution to some perceived issue that their customers have, whether that issue actually exists or not. I honestly have no issue with Modules having a place in Fedora as well, and maybe that's actually the best place for them: As an optional repository that must be enabled before it can be used, and nothing more. Perhaps we could: 1) Disallow default modules, require that all defaults must be traditional packages. 2) Have modules disabled by default, with the option to enable them if you wish, perhaps even transparently by installing package:moduleversion? -- John M. Harris, Jr. Splentity _______________________________________________ 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
