On 15. 11. 19 14:03, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2019-11-14, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> I've asked whether it wouldn't be in fact much easier to keep the
> default versions of our packages non-modular.
> Arguments were made that default modular streams are planned to
> deliver the exact same experience as non-modular packages, yet it was
> not said if it wouldn't be easier to just deliver non-modular packages
> for default versions.
> Maybe it would be helpful to try to reformulate the question:
> **What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
> Considering we have 6 default modular streams, let me acknowledge that
> for the maintainers who decided to deliver default modular streams
> instead of non-modular packages, there clearly are some benefits.
> While some of us might not understand them, let's not say there are
> none. But even if there are clear benefits for the maintainers of
> those modules, I'm asking about the benefits for everybody else.
You answered yourself: "default modular streams are planned to deliver
the exact same experience as non-modular packages." If they provide the
same experience, they provide the same set of benefits. Hence there
cannot be any "benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
That is indeed how I understand it.
If you want a disuccion, then you should not have stripped all
modularity features and than ask what are the benefits of modularity
What features have I stripped?