On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 08:14:39AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 3:38 AM Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 06:51:36AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > Yes. Putting the "stream identification" into the package name is
> > most natural solution, and has been floated various times.
> This already happens. But not in Fedora. In RHEL, modular packages have
> Modularitylabel RPM tag that carries the module name and stream.
The ModularityLabel RPM tag is also present in Fedora.
Interesting. I checked the first modular package for the first module "dnf
module list" gives in Fedora 33
(ant-0:1.10.5-3.module_f28+4207+d722d224.noarch), and it does not contain the
tag. I did not checked other ones. Thus I wrote that it was not in Fedora.
Now I see that the package was built on Fedora 28 platform. When I check the
latest build in Koji, ant-1.10.7-2.module_f31+7074+f8e1675d.noarch, the tag
My apology. Probably the new tag was enabled sometime in between and nobody
cared to rebuild the module after that (although relengs mass-rebuild modules
on branching) and nobody cared to submit to latest build to stable.
However, it's documented as *not* reliable for reverse lookups.
lists the NSVCA of the build it first occurred in, which may not be what
you're looking for if the package was unchanged and has been reused for
subsequent builds. (Though I *think* you can rely on the name and stream
being the same right now, since we don't yet have cross-module component
reuse in MBS, but that's coming.)
Exactly. We do not reuse components across modules. I cannot see how reliable
it could be considering every module can have a different build root resulting
into incompatible builds. So the fact that it "is coming" is news for me.