On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:16 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I love how people hold up "containers" as a solution to these problems > without considering for a moment how exactly the container itself gets > built. If you were to look into the flatpak build system in Fedora, > you'd see that they are using Modularity to construct them. You're right, Flatpak is doing that. Alternatively, my team and I build containers with multiple repos when we want to choose versions of software. "fedpkg container-build --repo-url" takes multiple .repo files. This works well because it uses the standard behavior that we've relied on in Yum and DNF for many years. The corner-cases around dependencies and what-version-overrides-what are well understood across the developer community. This same .repo method works well across RHEL 7, RHEL 8, and beyond. The .repo files are extremely flexible and can come from a variety of systems that are not MBS. Contrast this with the way that OSBS and ODCS work. The current implementation is misleading, and the reason I say this is because several independent teams recently arrived at the same erroneous conclusions around how developers are supposed to use modules with OSBS and ODCS: https://github.com/containerbuildsystem/osbs-docs/pull/152 - Ken _______________________________________________ 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
