On 2019-11-15, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 15. 11. 19 14:32, Petr Pisar wrote: >> On 2019-10-04, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Wouldn't it be easier if the "default stream" would just behave like >>> a regular package? >>> >>> I can think of two solutions of that: >>> >>> 1. (drastic for modular maintainers) >>> >>> We keep miantaining the default versions of things as ursine packages. >>> We only modularize alternate versions. >>> >> Big con: >> >> That effectively bans modules with multiple dependencies where at least >> one is a default version. >> >> Example: I have Perl 5.26 as a default version. I have Perl 5.30 as an >> laternative version. Now I want to package Bugzilla that's written in >> Perl. How do you package Bugzilla so that it works with Perl 5.26 as >> well as with Perl 5.30? > > I don't understand why would the user care about the Perl version when > they want Bugzilla. How is Bugzilla different form e.g. Slic3r (app > that happens to be written in Perl)? Do we want to modularize all such > apps to solve the "no parallel instability" feature? > I don't know. Ask the user why he needs a different Perl version than the default one. Maybe he has some other applications that work only with that particular version. If you believe that users do not care about a version of software they use, then we can drop out modularity, and all Fedora releases and deliver only Rawhide. Or we can stop integrating new versions of software and deliver Fedora 32 and nothing else forever. >> If each of the Perls is a stream of a module, you will put Bugzilla into >> a module and let it depend on any of the Perls. User can install any of >> the Perls and Bugzilla. >> >> With your proposal Bugzilla packager would have to package Bugzilla >> twice: as a normal package for default Perl 5.26 and as a module for Perl >> 5.30. Then a user would have hard time to select the right combinations of >> Perl and Bugzilla. It would double fork work pacakgers and and make >> the system more dificult for users. > > With my proposal, Bugzilla packager would package Bugzilla in > non-modular Fedora unless they also want to package it as a module. If > I see correctly, this is exactly the case today. > And do you know the packager does not want to pacakge Bugzilla as a module? Because in current Fedora without default streams in build root he had to package it and maintain it twice. -- Petr _______________________________________________ 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
