On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 01:59, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:51 PM clime <clime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 15:25, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:05 AM Igor Raits > > > <ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 08:44 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > Hopefully that provides some context and helps FESCo and the wider > > > > > community understand where Red Hat is headed with modularity on the > > > > > Enterprise side. > > > > > > > > Sadly no. It helps to understand your plans, however it does not help > > > > to understand the reasons behind, whether you can't change UX in the > > > > RHEL 9, or you think that technology is good enough for your use-cases > > > > or any other reasons. > > > > > > The base requirement is that the UX remain largely the same. As I > > > said, from a RHEL perspective, we need RHEL 8 and RHEL 9 to have > > > commonality so that our customers are not forced to learn something > > > entirely different to adopt RHEL 9. Improvements in the underlying > > > functionality are of course welcome and planned, but we are not going > > > to do something like replace modules with a different artifact type, > > > > Hello Josh, > > > > you can change the artifact type while keeping interface the same and > > it would be a _HUGE_ win because it would make modularity finally > > understandable for mere humans and better maintainable. > > > > Namely, modules should become rpms and therefore obey standard rpm rules. > > I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean, but it sounds like > you have some interesting ideas. > > I'm looking forward to seeing what you and the community can build > from them, and how they could be brought into RHEL 10+! That kind of > collaboration is what makes Fedora great. I know this probably won't change anything because this was mentioned many times (by me at least) and nothing has changed but still... Currently, modules are essentially yum sub-repos, they are not really "modules", instead they are collections of rpms that reinvent rpm-like relations (obsoletes, requires, build-requires, etc.). There is no reason for this wheel-reintervention. Modules (the collections) can be simply squashed into an rpm by automation and this resulting rpm can go to the modular repo together with other modules. That way we don't have two types of objects we complex inter-relations but only one we well-known behavior. I wonder if this is clear to everyone but nobody really cares or doesn't really want to say it or I don't know. Is this clear to everyone? I mean either I am stating an obvious stuff that nobody really considers worth typing or idk. Anyway best regards clime > > josh > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
