On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 02:48:13PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 08:31:10AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> This is not true. It should be *possible* to have a fully modularized
> distribution, but that isn't a specific goal for Fedora or RHEL.
Because this keeps coming up, we talked about this at the Fedora Council
meeting today. Our goals for modularity are:
2. Those alternate streams should be able to have different lifecycles.
Hmm, it sounds like the Council hasn't taken into account the constraints
on lifecycle of modules that we have slowly discovered during the last
two years, constraints that are now part of FESCo-approved policy.
Essentially, modules in Fedora are only allowed to EOL at EOL of Fedora release.
And to preserve stability for users, a.k.a. following the Update Policy,
modules should only change to new major version at Fedora releases.
This is exactly the same as for "normal" rpms.
The lifecycle of modules in Fedora must be the same as lifecycle of
Fedora releases, so no "different lifecycle" is possible.
1. Users should have alternate streams of software available.
3. Packaging an individual stream for multiple outputs should be easier
Those *are* useful goals, but they should not be tied to specific technology,
we should only care about the end-result.
Thus, please replace "Our goals for modularity are" with "What we hope
to achieve with modularity" or even "Our goal is for users to be able to".