On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:45:22 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote: > You're assuming that parallel-install is a thing that everyone needs > from every package on their system. I'm not. However, if you're going to bring up 'the recommended solution for doing "parallel-install" with modules', it makes sense to address this. > Our research and surveys determined that this was not in fact the case for > the overwhelming majority of real-world deployments. Most[1] deployments > function with a "one app per VM/container" mentality. This isn't surprising to me, as that's just an extension of what is done with physical hosts as well, when serving important services. The physical host or VM is often dedicated to said service, often at the recommendation of the software itself, for example FreeIPA recommends this. > In such cases, parallel-installability is at best unnecessary and (such as > with SCLs) actively annoying to them. Only if actually implemented as SCLs, in my opinion, but that is definitely an opinion. > Modules offers the availability of multiple streams of software like SCLs > does, but it sacrifices the ability to install them in parallel for the > ability to install them in the standard locations on disk so that other > software doesn't need to adapt to alternate locations (the number-one > complaint received about SCLs). So, are modules are meant to replace SCLs? If so, surely the inability to install multiple versions invalidates that? For example, one of the issues I'm trying to resolve at work is providing both Python 2.7 and Python 3.5 on RHEL 6. -- 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
