Re: RHEL 9 and modularity
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 5:31 AM Dan Čermák
<dan.cermak(a)cgc-instruments.com> wrote:
Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)redhat.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:54 PM David Cantrell <dcantrell(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:44:39AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> >Hopefully that provides some context and helps FESCo and the wider
>> >community understand where Red Hat is headed with modularity on the
>> >Enterprise side.
>>
>> Around the idea and concept of modularity... what are the benefits to Fedora,
>> Fedora developers, and Fedora contributors? Through the various discussions
>> on modularity, nothing solid in this regard has been presented. If I am
>> Fedora contributor now, what can modularity do for me?
>>
>> Most of the remainder of this thread talks about the problems with the
>> implementation as it exists today and problems with other known options.
>> Putting that aside for now, why should Fedora contributors care about
>> modularity?
>>
>> Put another way, what does the developer experience look like for modularity?
>
> These are good questions, but I feel like there has been about 2+
> years of discussion and debate about what Fedora could get out of
> modularity.
Well, a short tl;dr; would certainly help, as I must admit that even
after 2+ years of discussion I see very little incentive to modularize
any of my packages.
I see benefits of modularity for CentOS/RHEL, but not so clearly for
Fedora (except for more special cases like sway, where we have the
quickly evolving wlroots library and can thus deliver an up to date sway
even for older Fedora releases).
TL;DR benefits of modularity for Fedora:
* Automating build chains for producing artifacts
* Straightforward mechanism of producing non-rpm artifacts using our
existing tooling (modules -> flatpaks/containers/etc.)
* Path to provide alternative versions of stacks that don't natively
multiversion (Nodejs, Perl, PHP, etc.)
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!