Re: modular protobuf issue (Dec. 6, 2019) recap

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

 



Langdon White wrote:
> ## What we can do going forward:
> * Increase the awareness of the policies for Fedora Modules
> * Investigate an "early warning system" that would indicate to packagers
> (modular and RPM) when they might be violating this policy
> * Request dnf notify the user when they are enabling a superseding rpm
> from a default stream module
> * Request dnf provide an indication of what module is providing a
> particular rpm (e.g. `dnf provides protobuf` not just indicate repo origin
> but also module name and stream)

* Stop allowing default module streams, which are the main reason this was
  allowed to happen, and which are just asking for this kind of conflicts.

        Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
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