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.
> This comes at a high cost to package owners if we have to keep
> non-modular packages - we have to maintain, build, and test X streams
> plus Y non-modular release branch builds for each component, rather than
> just X streams.
Yes. This is the benefit of the default modular stream for the modular
maintainers. I have never questioned it.
OK great, though it is a bit surprising to hear in a thread which you
started explicitly to question the benefits of default modular streams.
In my opinion (and that is my very subjective opinion, but based on
experience) the cost of that difference is otherwise paid by everybody else.
The group of everybody else is very much bigger than the group of modular
maintainers. Hence, I'd approve such trade off.
So it's clear to me that you see that packagers chosing default streams
over non-modular packages impose external costs on the rest of the
distro (packagers and/or users?) somehow. This thread was supposed to
focus on benefits, and these vague claims about costs and trade-offs
seem speculative, but maybe you could expand on that a bit?
Perhaps this stuff is obvious to others already. In RHEL8 while we have
certainly hit various problems with modularity at least I don't recall
my teams hitting major issues with default streams being available for
non-modular packages.
Regards, Joe