----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stephen Gallagher" <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 9:15:38 PM > Subject: Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:04 PM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > I phrased that wrong. It should have read: "_sometimes_ (such as with SCLs)". > > > > 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? > > > > They aren't incompatible technologies. If there is a case where > parallel-installability is valuable, an SCL can still be made. But for > the common case, we (Red Hat) determined that parallel-availability > was more valuable and common. > > > 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. > > Python 2 and 3 are effectively separate tools and (given that they are > built with parallel-installability in mind) should absolutely not be > streams of the same module. > > Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a more interesting question... That is actually a non-issue, they are parallel installable if you exclude the main python3 binary. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Regards, Charalampos Stratakis Software Engineer Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat _______________________________________________ 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
