Re: What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular packages?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 6:23 AM Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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*.

Confusing and inconsistent resolution of dependency chains is a direct
consequence of using modularity. These threads have pointed out
others.

> 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

Those maintainers are a small though vocal minority. Can anyone name
three packages that genuinely benefit from modularity, rather than
/etc/alternatives, SCL style separate deployment in /opt/. If there
was always a bae installation and modules were, in fact, only an
add-on, that might have been more stable.

> 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.

At the cost of the time of *other* package maintainers who have to
deal with the inconsistent dependency resolutions at build and
deployment time. It's not, so far, proven to be a helpful technology.
_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux