On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:15 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:07:44PM -0600, Al Stone wrote:
> -- And the one question I have to add on to Christopher's wonderful
> list: I have a package where upstream releases about once a month,
> and each new release must by definition be backwards compatible
> (acpica-tools, specifically). I can think of no scenario where a
> module provides value to me or end-users; in fact, using anything
> other than the most recent causes problems. Do I have to create and
> maintain a module for this package anyway? Or are the defaults
> robust enough that a package can remain a package without touching
> modularity at all? The answer to this is completely unclear to me --
> what I've read seems to imply that I must create a module definition
> regardless.
This actually seems like the ideal case for a single stream -- instead of
maintaining rawhide, f29, f28, epel7, you'd just maintain "latest",
and that would get build into all of these releases simultaneously.
I still don't get why this subset case requires all the extra module
goop? Couldn't we just have fedpkg have an "fedpkg build
--all-releases" switch to just trigger on the same commit for all
releases?
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!