On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:11 AM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh(a)splentity.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 9:07:51 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:05 AM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh(a)splentity.com>
> > On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 6:26:31 PM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > given that we're talking about the need to migrate defaults
> > To clarify, that has not been decided, and a prominent option mentioned
> > in
> > this thread is the option to simply require that there is a non-modular
> > package.
> I think we can pretty much guarantee that's not going to happen.
> Unfortunately, modularization is a one-way road, given how modularity
> is implemented in DNF and how our distribution policies are currently
> It just means that people need to *really* think of the consequences
> of modularizing content, because there's basically no going back after
> that. We have no escape hatches or transition mechanisms to go from
> modular to non-modular variants of the same RPMs.
That's not what the proposal is. The proposal is to require a non-modular
version, an "ursine package", for modular packages, instead of default
We cannot remove already existing default modules without further
breaking things. Moreover, DNF will refuse to expose non-modular RPMs
if it's aware of modular ones that have existed at some point. The
best we can do is stop people from making more.
We have no process for de-modularization and I fully expect us to not
have one ever, as the end goal of the modularity project is to enable
a fully modularized distribution. Even RHEL 8 isn't a full realization
of that vision.
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!