On 15. 11. 19 12:14, Joe Orton wrote:
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).
I don't understand how are default modular streams valuable to that benefit.
(let's have a lamafarm software in the examples)
Suppose I have this situation:
- lamafarm version 1.x is in default modular stream only
- there are no other streams with other versions of lamafarm
Vs. this situation:
- lamafarm version 1.x is in non-modular Fedora
- there are no modular streams with other versions of lamafarm
Where is the end-user benefit with the modular default stream? I don't see it,
sorry.
Or suppose I have this situation:
- lamafarm version 1.x is in default modular stream only
- there are N other streams with other versions of lamafarm (such as 2.x, ...)
Vs. this situation:
- lamafarm version 1.x is in non-modular Fedora
- there are N moulear streams with other versions of lamafarm (such as 2.x, ...)
Where is the end-user benefit with the modular default stream? I don't see it
either, sorry.
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.
Yes. This is the benefit of the default modular stream for the modular
maintainers. I have never questioned it.
I have even proposed that we take the default modular stream RPMs and we add
them to our non-modular repository when we compose it, in order to keep that
benefit for the modular maintainers. It was turned down almost immediately.
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.
In my opinion (and that is my very subjective opinion, but based on experience)
the cost of that difference is otherwise paid by everybody else.
The group of everybody else is very much bigger than the group of modular
maintainers. Hence, I'd approve such trade off.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
