Christopher wrote: > Interesting that the survey shows that the most common response was that > people use it "not at all" and the overall response was negative, but the > reaction to that is, "improve the docs" and "works as intended". Am I the > only one who thinks that the people pushing modularity aren't listening to > the larger community? Indeed, it looks like the only kind of action justified by the responses is "axe the whole thing". (See the remainder of my mail for the rationale.) And the proposed solutions (under "Conclusions and Plans") for the encountered issues are not convincing me at all. E.g.: | Problems finding modular or non-modular RPMs hidden by an active module | Stream | Solution: The problem is fixed in Fedora 32 already by the patch | [https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/1483] . | | Problems with modular RPMs overriding non-modular RPMs | It works per design. Any change proposals should be discussed first. I think this is a design flaw that cannot just be filed off as "works per design", considering that many people have issues with it. And the solution to allow "finding" the hidden RPMs through the obscure "dnf module provides" command (see the linked "fix") is not of much use, considering that it is not how people normally look for packages (and it is not exposed in any UI). > I used to love Fedora for being my community distro... but ever since > modularity, things seem to be far less about the community, and far more > about doing what a tiny few want. Modularity has some good ideas... it has > some merit... just like SCL had some good ideas... but good ideas aren't > enough to override the fact that few people want it, and most people find > it more problematic than beneficial. Indeed, the vast majority of packagers that answered do not package modules at all, only RPMs. More respondents do not even use modularity at all than use it frequently. And "use it occasionally" is not well-defined, since default streams in some existing Fedora releases mean that you end up "using modularity occasionally" if you do not go out of your way to avoid it (by disabling the modular repositories, which Fedora explicitly recommends against). So we might not even have a majority using modularity deliberately. (One needs to ask better questions to find that out.) > The disproportionate size of the effort and disproportionate disruption it > has caused to the stability of Fedora packaging, just don't seem to be > justifiable at the current level of maturity. Agreed. > For what it's worth, I applaud the efforts of the modularity team for the > kind of research and development they've put in to the system... I don't > fault them at all for their work to experiment with a new packaging > paradigm... Also keep in mind that the current Modularity team is basically a new team that inherited the flawed design from the original Modularity team. > I just think the degree of experimentation on the packager experience > while packagers still need to do their packaging, wasn't the right venue > for that experimentation, and Fedora had suffered immensely as a > consequence. I agree here too. So a big +1 to your message. 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
