Re: Modularity UX Questions

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 8:42 AM Lukas Ruzicka <lruzicka(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  === A module does not have one or more of its profiles specified to be
> > the default. ===
> >
> >
>  Here, I would expect that DNF will finish with error, advising the user to
>  select a profile specifically, such as using "dnf module install
>  <module>:<stream>/<profile>".
>
>   === A module has explicitly set one or more of its streams to have no
>
> > default profiles ===
> >
> >  Here, I could imagine that such a module would be marked "special".
>  Marking a module "special" would clearly tell QA that special behaviour is
>  intented (empty profile or something similar). The DNF either should not
>  list them in "dnf module list" or if listed they should have a visible
>  distinction (such as "s") or something like that. We could utilize the
>  difference between "dnf module list" and "dnf module list --all",
> that
>  currently do the same job, so that "dnf module list" would only show
>  installable modules, while "dnf module list --all" would list all modules,
>  as the option suggests.
>  If someone attempted to install a special module, DNF should not proceed
>  anyhow and warn about that.
>  

I think that would be far more confusing than the approach I just
suggested. Note that `dnf module list` will already show which profiles are
the default. If there are none, there's no need for an additional
identifier.

But I think I'm coming around to "it should reject the request and advise
you to use `enable` or a specific profile";