On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 04:56:28PM +0100, Miro Hroncok wrote: > I'll admit that I personally don't see any benefits, but of course that > doesn't mean that they don't exist or that it's not worth having this > discussion. > > Considering we have 6 default modular streams, let me acknowledge that for > the maintainers who decided to deliver default modular streams instead of > non-modular packages, there clearly are some benefits. > While some of us might not understand them, let's not say there are none. > But even if there are clear benefits for the maintainers of those modules, > I'm asking about the benefits for everybody else. Seems like a bit of an odd question. There is an end-user benefit from making multiple module streams available both in the short run (more features/choices today) and long run (better tested software via making development/unstable releases available more widely). This comes at a high cost to package owners if we have to keep non-modular packages - we have to maintain, build, and test X streams plus Y non-modular release branch builds for each component, rather than just X streams. In some cases the costs will be prohibitive to supporting modular streams - the aim of switching to default streams + dropping non-modular packages is precisely to eliminate that cost difference. Regards, Joe _______________________________________________ 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
