On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:09 PM Miro HronĨok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
On 13. 11. 19 23:27, Kevin Kofler wrote:
So I guess the proposal is underspecified. What I really propose, and how I read Miro's proposal as well (Miro, please correct me if that is not what you intend), is that 1. any package that exists in a module MUST have a default version and that 2. that version MUST be packaged in the ursine/non- modular repository, not as a default stream.
Point 1. is essential, as otherwise, point 2. alone will just lead to people not declaring a default version at all, which is a completely broken state and so even worse than the situation with the default stream, despite all the issues with default streams.
While I agree that this is what we should desire, it was deliberately left out of my proposal. My idea was to keep the ability of modular only packages, for the maintainers who decided that this is what they want to do things. For basically 2 reasons:
- I don't see a reason for modular only packages without defaults, it doesn't
mean there is none.
Modular packages without defaults makes sense if they have dependencies on a non-default stream. For example: ReviewBoard depends on the Django:1.6 stream because of complicated upstream reasons. I have to choose between "modular without a default stream" or "not available on Fedora", because we have agreed on a prohibition on default streams with dependencies on non-default streams.