Dne 24. 06. 20 v 17:04 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 10:45 AM Vít Ondruch
> Dne 24. 06. 20 v 15:47 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
>> On 24. 06. 20 14:41, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Having python27 and python36 modules is fail, because these should be
>>> 2.7 and 3.6 streams of python module.
>> Oh. We are so sorry for the failure. Could you please report is as a
>> bug in RHEL 8 and explain why it is a problem?
> If you have not stripped the context, it would be more obvious.
> There is no philosophical (or design?) reason to not have Python 2.7 and
> 3.6 streams in one module. There are just technical reasons, such as
> that you want to install them in parallel which is not possible.
My CentOS 8.2 system with Python 2.7, 3.6, and 3.8 all simultaneously
installed disagrees with this statement. Modularity makes no effort to
hide the complexity of parallel installability. It only helps make
clearer how to handle availability of multiple sets of content from a
repository. Parallel installability is up to the module author.
Is it? Does modularity allow to install multiple streams if they don't
collide? IOW if there was python module with non colliding 2.7 and 3.6
streams, would I be able to simply run:
$ sudo dnf module enable python 2.7
$ sudo dnf module enable python 3.6
$ python2.7 -V
$ python3.6 -V
Reading following resources, I don't think it is possible, but I might
If the above is really possible, I would like to see the documentation
extended to cover such scenario.