On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 02:30:20PM +0000, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:44:52PM +0100, Miro Hroncok wrote:
> Where is the end-user benefit with the modular default stream? I don't see
> it either, sorry.
It's not clear to me how those examples are related to my argument,
which I could summarize as:
a) multiple module streams have a benefit to users, and
b) default streams have a benefit to package owners.
Hi Joe,
this thread is looking for details about a very specific question:
What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular packages?
(and as clarified in text: for everybody else, not the maintainers of those
modules). We also want to be as concrete as possible, to avoid getting
mired in speculation.
If I understood your argument, you are saying that default module
streams make it easier for the owners of those modules to deliver rpms
(as compared to providing non-modular rpms), and that this indirectly
benefits users because they get those rpms faster and will less maintainer
effort. Did I get this right?
If there's some other benefit, please describe a specific scenario.
Zbyszek