----- Original Message -----
From: "Neal Gompa" <ngompa13(a)gmail.com>
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 2:36:58 PM
Subject: Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 8:50 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:41 AM Lukas Ruzicka <lruzicka(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Seeing the reaction of the Modularity WG ... I do not understand how it is
>> possible that such important decisions are taken by 4 people without any
>> Fedora wide discussions like this. And yet, it seems a little bit that
>> even opinions on this list will not fall on fertile grounds.
> To be clear, I am reading every single reply to this thread very carefully.
> We *will* be taking all of this feedback into consideration, but please
> understand that we're also trying to balance things. As Neal noted
> upthread, we do have a responsibility to our downstream to make sure that
> we do not break the ability to manage default streams. This becomes much
> more difficult if we cannot have them in Fedora, because the testing of
> them is lost. Additionally, no one on the WG disagrees with you that the
> current state of things is undesirable. I take a moderate amount of
> offense to the repeated insinuations that the solutions we are building
> are "hacks". Yes, there's a proposal to work around the upgrade issue
> F31 that is absolutely a one-off hack to buy time. But our plans for how
> upgrades should work long-term as well as how defaults need to behave in
> the distro are being considered very carefully. We are trying to avoid
> breakage and to make the process simpler, but we are also shoring up the
> bridge while crossing it.
Two years into this, I am currently not confident that modularity will
be adapted to support community distributions well, especially
fast-paced ones like Fedora. My fears about it encouraging Fedora to
slow down has also seemingly borne fruit, too. Java is proof positive
Since the implosion of Fedora Java in the regular distribution and its
move to modules, the traditional effort to move to newer Java versions
has basically disappeared. Java 11 LTS was released last year, and to
this day our default Java is still Java 8 (which is EOL!). Clearly,
we're developing a new antipattern that we need to nip in the bud
sooner rather than later.
Not going to argue that we're well behind here, but to my knowledge,
the Stewardship SIG maintains just about everything you'd find in a
useless modular repo (e.g., packages that are outside of the default
module stream's limited API) as an ursine package. We try not to
duplicate too much of what's provided in the default module streams.
So the claim that Java has imploded in the regular distribution are
a little bit of a stretch.
Then again, I don't use eclipse and most of my projects use CMake, not
maven so I don't miss either of those major projects. I'm mostly talking
about the vast swatches of Java libraries... :)
My disappointment in this became even greater when openSUSE beat us to
switching to Java 11. Their packaging is derived from ours! They've
demodularized Java for openSUSE and then did the work to move
everything forward. Meanwhile, we've now failed at our "first" and
"features" pillars because the incentive is now *gone*.
The Stewardship SIG does its best to update packages, but doesn't
have the resources to fully switch to JDK 11 ourselves. That's really
up to the Java SIG. Also, there's really nothing to do to demodularize
a package. Just choose a branch and build it as an ursine package...