Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> You're assuming that parallel-install is a thing that everyone needs
> from every package on their system. 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. In such cases,
> parallel-installability is at best unnecessary and (such as with SCLs)
> actively annoying to them. 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).
>
> [1] Yes, I realize that "most" may not include you. Every environment
> is unique, but we have to try and optimize our efforts for the largest
> set of consumers possible. We reasoned that containers were a
> sufficient workaround for the cases not following the "one app per
> VM/container" approach.
That may be true for RHEL, but I do not see how that would be the case in
Fedora (or even CentOS), at all. It is also a very server-centric view: I do
not know any desktop user working that way.
I would really like to know where your data comes from exactly, whom you
surveyed, and how you counted the deployments.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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
