Le mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 06:43 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot via devel a écrit : > > Fedora modules are an horrifically complex way to pretend those basic > three constrains do not exist, while actually implementing them > (except in a broken non-working way, because the *pretence* is that > the constrains do not exist). And anyway, if anyone feels the module design is actually needed (I don’t, because the problems are elsewhere), it could have been *easily* implemented within existing tools, without adding new infra to the mix, just with 1. packages contained in modulename are named <modulename>-usual-name 2. packages contained in modulename should include in their spec %global module modulename 3. in-module (Build)deps are declared with (Build)Requires: (usual-depname with module(modulename)) and then you add some rather trivial logic in rpm to provide module(modulename) when the module variable is declared, and to inhibit auto(Build)Requires for foo when the same is already present as (Build)Requires (foo module(modulename)) There are *no* drawbacks, except forcing packagers to be explicit about modules, to think about what they want to take in a module and what they want to take elsewhere, to think about conflicts. Not thinking about all those parts is why current Fedora modules do not play well with one another or with the rest of the distribution. The module system can not invent info packagers didn't provide explicitely. But no, people wanted to play with a NiH start-from-scratch design. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot _______________________________________________ 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
