On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 08:01:45PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 13. 10. 19 19:38, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ben Rosser wrote:
> > Before things are rolled out further, I'd like to see some policies
> > agreed upon for what modularity is and isn't allowed for in Fedora:
> > what are the rules for default streams, buildroot only modules,
> > modularizing non-leaf packages, etc.
> So, to start that discussion, I think all 3 of those should be no gos in
> Fedora. In other words, I propose the following rules:
> * no default streams, use "ursine" (non-modular) packages for the default
> versions instead (you may ALSO ship the same version as a module, if that
> makes it easier for you, i.e., if it means you don't have to retire and
> unretire module versions at every release, but the "ursine" version
> * no buildroot-only modules nor buildroot-only packages in modules,
> everything used to build packages must be shipped along with them,
> * no non-leaf modules, since those unavoidably lead to version hell due to
> the non-parallel-installability of different versions of the same module.
The third rule is unnecessary with the first. We can keep the integrity of
the default and provide non-defaults that may violate it if properly
documented (you might want to enable a nondefault modular stream to install
libfoo:0.27 in a container, even if it makes various packages you don't need
I was hoping to have some of the folks who would be saddled with tons
more work if this policy was enacted chime in, but I don't think any of
them have. (ie, the people who have moved their packages to modules and
have or are going to retire their non modular versions). We may want to
ask them directly what they would do if this policy is enacted.
I understand that people want to go back to the last known "good" state
for them and regroup, but keep in mind that has it's price also. One
that I don't think too many in this thread will have to pay, so it's
easy to just say 'revert it all'.