On 11/14/19 7:56 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
**What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
packages?**
I think Adam Williamson tried to answer that in a message in the thread
"Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path" (link below) when he wrote:
"if you just don't modularize FreeIPA ... we're stuck shipping this one
version of FreeIPA for the next seventy jillion years"
I didn't really understand that, but maybe he'll clarify (possibly
again) in this thread.
I think I don't understand what he meant because I'm not clear on what
he meant to imply would happen when the default module changes. Perhaps
the idea is that nothing happens. The packages in that module just stop
getting updates and it's up to the end user to enable a new module and
migrate their data. That could, conceivably, be seen as better than
rebasing the packages on a new version that requires a data migration
that can't reliably be done automatically.
That's speculation on my part, however, and it's inconsistent with the
behavior that Stephen described in the first message in that thread,
which was "When running `dnf update` or `dnf system-upgrade`, if the
default stream for a module installed on the system changes and the
module's current state is `default_enabled`, then the transaction should
cause the new default stream to be enabled." And I'm not sure how
that's different or better than simply rebasing, as RHEL sometimes does.
Anyway, among the messages I've read in the earlier threads, Adam's came
closest to answering this question, so I hope he'll weigh in again.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...