On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:09 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > Modular packages without defaults makes sense if they have dependencies on a non-default stream. For example: ReviewBoard depends on the Django:1.6 stream because of complicated upstream reasons. I have to choose between "modular without a default stream" or "not available on Fedora", because we have agreed on a prohibition on default streams with dependencies on non-default streams. _______________________________________________ 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
