On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:59:05PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > For Maven packaging the appeal of Modularity is clearly the privatization of > the dependency tree, which obviously undercuts the ecosystem of packages. > You are right that bundling is one of the features of Modularity and that this freedom undermines an integration effort on the Fedora distribution level. But bundling is not the only appeal for Maven maintainers. If I can speek for Mikolaj, then another appeal is sharing a module among multiple Fedora releases. Because byte-compiled Java code is portable, it is possible to build a module on Fedora 31 and have the same module build available on Fedora 34. This saves the module maintainers from the burden of rebuilding the Java packages for each Fedora and Modularity is the first place that actuallty can leverage this Java feature. > If there wasn't Modularity and instead Maven would bundle it's deps into > one huge srpm, the effect on the ecosystem would be the same. Not really. Modules are collections of packages and various modules can share the sources of the same packages. That means that Modularity does not prevent from sharing a maintenance cost of the packages. It only makes it more difficult, because of worse discoverbility and a wider selection of the choice. > Modularization gives short-term relief at a very high long-term > cost. We should avoid modularization like we avoid bundling. Sarcasm: I really like how other one people order other ones that they have to maintain the packages for them. -- Petr
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
