Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 07. 12. 19 10:44, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> 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.
>
> And disallow all the current default modular streams. Ship defaults as
> traditional RPMs. Keep modularity for alternate versions.
+1, indeed. (I would consider that part of "stop allowing", but thanks for
the clarification.)
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
