On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 04:12, Naheem Zaffar <naheemzaffar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, 02:57 clime, <clime(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 01:59, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:51 PM clime <clime(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 15:25, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:05 AM Igor Raits
> > > > <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > Hash: SHA512
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 08:44 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > > > Hopefully that provides some context and helps FESCo and the
> > > > > > community understand where Red Hat is headed with modularity
> > > > > > Enterprise side.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sadly no. It helps to understand your plans, however it does not
> > > > > to understand the reasons behind, whether you can't change UX
> > > > > RHEL 9, or you think that technology is good enough for your
> > > > > or any other reasons.
> > > >
> > > > The base requirement is that the UX remain largely the same. As I
> > > > said, from a RHEL perspective, we need RHEL 8 and RHEL 9 to have
> > > > commonality so that our customers are not forced to learn something
> > > > entirely different to adopt RHEL 9. Improvements in the underlying
> > > > functionality are of course welcome and planned, but we are not going
> > > > to do something like replace modules with a different artifact type,
> > >
> > > Hello Josh,
> > >
> > > you can change the artifact type while keeping interface the same and
> > > it would be a _HUGE_ win because it would make modularity finally
> > > understandable for mere humans and better maintainable.
> > >
> > > Namely, modules should become rpms and therefore obey standard rpm rules.
> > I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean, but it sounds like
> > you have some interesting ideas.
> > I'm looking forward to seeing what you and the community can build
> > from them, and how they could be brought into RHEL 10+! That kind of
> > collaboration is what makes Fedora great.
> I know this probably won't change anything because this was mentioned
> many times (by me at least) and nothing has changed but still...
> Currently, modules are essentially yum sub-repos, they are not really
> "modules", instead they are collections of rpms that reinvent rpm-like
> relations (obsoletes, requires, build-requires, etc.).
> There is no reason for this wheel-reintervention. Modules (the
> collections) can be simply squashed into an rpm by automation and this
> resulting rpm can go to the modular repo together with other modules.
> That way we don't have two types of objects we complex inter-relations
> but only one we well-known behavior.
> I wonder if this is clear to everyone but nobody really cares or
> doesn't really want to say it or I don't know.
> Is this clear to everyone? I mean either I am stating an obvious stuff
> that nobody really considers worth typing or idk.
How would this work when there are optional rpms in the module?
You do not need to install every rpm in eg the php module (different graphics/database
backends) for that module to be useful, but every version of the module will have the rpm
as an option which wont work outside a module of multiple rpms.
Glad you ask, I wasn't precise...
Well, I didn't mean everything always needs to be squashed, instead,
it would be an optional step in modulemd processing. For some
use-cases (like delicately compiled postgresql server), you can create
a single rpm that contains all - postgresql-server, postgresql,
postgresql-libs compiled in a specific way, optionally with some
postgresql modules pre-included, so it would be let's say time-series
optimized postgresql. Here it makes sense to make a single rpm from it
- you install that and you are all set up for your use-case.
Then there are language stacks where you might want to build things in
a specific order - there nothing really needs to be squashed (or
certain subset can if it makes sense) but you can still use modularity
to easily batch-build certain rpms. If there are runtime optional
deps, they can be described by Recommends/Suggests.
Basically, once a "module" (things that comes from modulemd) is built,
it should be put into normal repos and the "module" boundary should be
forgotten (unless it is a single rpm), i.e. "module" is a built-time
thing, at install-time we just have standard packages with standard
dnf interface could be kept given that we "Stream" rpm property is
added. This is still a bit rough what I am saying but hopefully it
makes at least a bit of sense...
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: