Re: Proposed Modular Policy for Fedora ELN

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 1:57 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 21. 08. 20 10:07, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >> Josh listed some of the key reasons behind default streams: that
> >> enterprise customers don't like to learn new commands. So default
> >> streams allowed us to package content with shorter-than-RHEL-lifetime
> >> and still `yum install foo` would install something the customer could
> >> use.
> > I guess that "shorter-than-RHEL-lifetime" is the big differentiator, i.e.
> > normal rpms cannot be yanked from the distribution, but a module can be.
>
> Actually AFAIK modules shipped at GA cannot be yanked from the distribution
> either. Certainly not in Fedora.

That is correct; the modules cannot be removed from the distribution,
but the encapsulation of them in a separate delivery mechanism enables
the support *policy* to be different. (In particular, it's acceptable
from a technical perspective for customers of RHEL to keep using an
EOL module if they cannot transition in time; they just have to accept
the risks.)
_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux