On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:59 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I've asked whether it wouldn't be in fact much easier to keep the default > versions of our packages non-modular. > > Others have said they are interested in this as well. A huge thread happened but > it hasn't delivered an answer. > Arguments were made that default modular streams are planned to deliver the > exact same experience as non-modular packages, yet it was not said if it > wouldn't be easier to just deliver non-modular packages for default versions. > > Maybe it would be helpful to try to reformulate the question: > > > **What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular packages?** As Petr Pisar noted earlier, default streams are designed to deliver the same user experience as ursine packages, therefore there is no *direct* advantage or disadvantage of them over ursine packages, for Fedora *users*. Default streams are modules. Building packages as modules has very significant advantages to some package maintainers. Certain maintainers (like me) can save a lot of time by building packages as modules. This *indirectly* benefits users and other Fedora contributors - maintainers who can more easily build packages have more time to spend on important bugs and features affecting users, can get more involved in other Fedora activities etc. -- Mikolaj Izdebski _______________________________________________ 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
