On 2019-11-20, John M. Harris Jr <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 3:52:27 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote: >> If you start fidling with things in PATH, you have the problem of SCL. And >> as you wrote, SCL is terrible. And that was the reason why we have >> modularity: We do not want to relocate code to non-standard paths. > > I may be a bit confused here, but I thought Modularity was not a replacement > for SCLs? Clearly, it can't be, it doesn't provide even similar > functionality.. With SCLs, as annoying as they are, you do get parallel > installations, which Modularity cannot provide. > <https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/5PFUA7VAS7QOBDFGBPDQG2XQP3DZXYOS/>. Start reading from "SCLs" keyword. > If parallel availability, without parallel installation, is all you want, I > can show you how to do that with RPM right now, no Modularity required. > I would be happy for the parallel availability without Modularity. And it's not a big deal on the installation part (except of ugly packages names). The issue is the part when we build packages. One of the reasons why Modularity is as it is is that RPM and Koji stated no interest in accepting any changes. Therefore Modularity is a layer above them. -- 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
