On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:49:20AM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
To what extent do we want to encourage "collections of
stuff" modules?
Numerically, most modules will likely to be designed to be installed as
containers or flatpaks because that's how we handle conflicting dependencies.
If you leave those modules out, then you really have the constraint that
every package has to be in no more than one module. We can't have
"Matthew's System Tools" and "Owen's System Tools" that are
independently
curated, because they can't be enabled on the same system.
Well, we *can*. The question is whether we *should*. :)
I'm kind of on the "we shouldn't" side, but I could be convinced. My
intention is for anything that is in the System Tools module which gets
its own more focused module to be moved out.
So my expectation is that the number of "collections
modules" that have
no strong connection to a particular upstream release process will be
small and well defined - say Platform, Runtime, System Tools, and a few more.
As such, I think it *would* be reasonable to say that they all
are versioned at the same tempo and even keep the F<N> stream naming.
Langdon? Rebuttal? :)
Hmmm, I see a couple of issues:
* If we have 'apache' with a stream of 2.4 and 'GNOME Desktop' with a
stream of 3.24, we can't have the stream name be the main way we
convey EOL information. So then it's just confusing that for *some*
modules the EOL is duplicated in the stream name.
* The ability to change the EOL for a stream is quite likely useful -
to decide it will have a longer support lifetime than originally
planned. It would be even more confusing to have *incorrect* EOL's
as the stream name.
* Aren't people in July 2018 going to think f1806 is the current stream,
not a two-year old stream?
Yeah that last one is pretty bad. I think all of this argues for a real
first-class EOL metadata item.
If we need arbitrary stream names that are consistent across Fedora,
I think
release dates would be a lot clearer than EOL dates - EOL dates seem more
clever than useful.
Okay, I'm convinced, as long as we can get lifecycle/EOL as a first-class
metadata item.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader