On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 04:56:28PM +0100, Miro Hroncok wrote:
I'll admit that I personally don't see any benefits, but of
course that
doesn't mean that they don't exist or that it's not worth having this
discussion.
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.
Seems like a bit of an odd question. There is an end-user benefit from
making multiple module streams available both in the short run (more
features/choices today) and long run (better tested software via making
development/unstable releases available more widely).
This comes at a high cost to package owners if we have to keep
non-modular packages - we have to maintain, build, and test X streams
plus Y non-modular release branch builds for each component, rather than
just X streams. In some cases the costs will be prohibitive to
supporting modular streams - the aim of switching to default streams +
dropping non-modular packages is precisely to eliminate that cost
difference.
Regards, Joe