On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:30:21 PM MST Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:30:32PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> The idea is that it would act exactly the same way that dnf on the
> local system would act: if you builddep software from a stream that
> requires a non-default stream, it would enable that non-default
> stream.
Ah, I see. Thanks!
> > (And how would restricting default streams to only be able to depend on
> > default streams change things?)
>
> There wouldn't need to be a behavior change; this is all done at the
> libdnf layer; it just means that there is less available software in
> the buildroot (since we'd necessarily have to exclude anything that
> would conflict).
I still see "non default stream enabled by default stream" to be surprising
behavior we should avoid. But perhaps I am making too big a hammer of it.
:)
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Realistically, I believe that default streams themselves are something we
should avoid, if the cost is low, and it is. There are many users, probably
the vast majority of users, that don't use Modularity. It's great to have the
option available, but to force it upon them is really unfortunate.
Additionally, wouldn't a "default module" pulling in a "non-default
module"
cause mass breakage? I can only see that causing ABI breakage..
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity