Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:52:57PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: >> > I completely agree. This is one of the reasons I switched away from >> > ubuntu years ago (with its 4 (?) tiers of support + repos for its >> > packages ...). >> I agree, Fedora did the Core-Extras Merge back in the day for a reason. > > That reason was _mainly_ to erase the inside Red Hat, > community-around-the-edges distinction. That was a huge success and Fedora > wouldn't be interesting without that. But I think the _technical_ choice was > in retrospect a mistake. There's a reason RHEL 8 switched the _other_ way. Respectfully, I don't agree with that. From a technical perspective, the splitting of RHEL into many repos is awful to work with, and there was no reason to suppose it would be otherwise. Suppose I depend on a package. That package could now come from any of the following repositories (assuming I haven't forgotten any): - AppStream - BaseOS - CRB - BuildRoot - EPEL And that's just for me building things in BaseOS + AppStream, not even any layered products. For me internally, these repos are all nearby, but what if I weren't? Some come from Red Hat, some from CentOS, EPEL (and ELN) from Fedora, ... This is painful to work with; I just need my package to build. From a technical perspective, we need to consider the time lost due to trying to configure machines and testing environments with the right repos, the impossibility of figuring out what repo a package actually is shipped in [1] (if it even is), etc.. And that doesn't even get into modularity - where there's another layer of package non-discoverability. Also RHEL/EPEL policy currently means that "hidden" packages in RHEL can't be exposed in EPEL - because that would be repackaging them. In summary, from a technical perspective, this is an unwieldy mess. Nothing is gained from the packager's point of view or the end user's point of view. The gains [2] are in the lifecycle and support realms - firmly in business, not technical. So: no new repo splits please. The only distinction we should care about is "Fedora" and "not Fedora", in my view - keep it simple and approachable. Thanks, --Robbie 1: This is an issue with RHEL tools, in my view. 2: I contend that hiding packages doesn't actually reduce support burden, just hides it, but that's orthogonal to the conversation.
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
