Dne 31. 03. 20 v 10:00 Petr Pisar napsal(a):
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:25:45AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Wouldn't be easier to use something we already have? E.g.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages
DNF implements modules as an layer above RPM packages. Thus you cannot control
modules metadata from an RPM metadata.
But as a delivery mechanism for the new modular metadata it could work. But
only for those who has already installed the fedora-obsolete-packages package.
And not for a fresh new installation or an upgrade from an non-up-to-date
system. Imagine you have an EOLed Fedora 29 and you find out you need to obsolete
a module in Fedora 30. An impossible task because Fedora 29 does no longer
receive any updates. That's the same problem why module defaults are delivered
on YUM repository level, not inside an RPM package.
Exactly.
Storing the metadata in an RPM would mean you can use it *after* you
finish a transaction.
It would also cause problems to Anaconda, Mock and any other tools that
work with clean installs and should have the up-to-date information from
the beginning.
_______________________________________________
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
