On 13. 11. 19 23:27, Kevin Kofler wrote:
So I guess the proposal is underspecified. What I really propose, and how I read Miro's proposal as well (Miro, please correct me if that is not what you intend), is that 1. any package that exists in a module MUST have a default version and that 2. that version MUST be packaged in the ursine/non- modular repository, not as a default stream. Point 1. is essential, as otherwise, point 2. alone will just lead to people not declaring a default version at all, which is a completely broken state and so even worse than the situation with the default stream, despite all the issues with default streams.
While I agree that this is what we should desire, it was deliberately left out of my proposal. My idea was to keep the ability of modular only packages, for the maintainers who decided that this is what they want to do things. For basically 2 reasons:
1. I don't see a reason for modular only packages without defaults, it doesn't mean there is none.
2. As long as the modular packages "stay away" they are not blocking anyone to maintain the same packages in non-modular Fedora. While I'd rather have the modular maintainers maintain the package in non-modular Fedora, we cannot force anybody to maintain what they don't want to maintain.
As a side note, I hope that if we actually abandon the idea of default modular streams, packagers who want their packages in "default" Fedora will only have one obvious way how to do it instead of the current situation, where there are basically 2 options.
-- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok _______________________________________________ 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
