On 09/26/2018 04:17 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> I'm in the process of transitioning maintenance of all software to
> modules only. The reason is that module maintenance is much easier
> compared to maintenance of non-modular, "ursine" packages. Starting from
> Fedora 29 modules are first-class citizens, so I am finally able to
> orphan ursine packages that are already available in modules.
This is exactly what I feared when the modules were first proposed:
essential packages moving to modules only.
What would be an alternative? Orphaning/retiring some packages? Or
pretending to maintain them - not keeping them up-to-date, ignoring bugs
or delaying fixes, except from FTBFS fixes to prevent removal from
Modules with their API specifications at least make it more clear what
are expectations about packages. Something user may consider essential
is only a build dependency for a packager and the packages won't receive
enough attention from the maintainer.
I think this is absolutely a step in the wrong direction. Things like "ant"
are essential parts of a distribution. They cannot sit in some module with
arbitrary branches that can be EOLed at any time.
Module lifecycles are being discussed in a different thread. But I agree
that current situation in which modules (especially those containing
important packages) can be EOL before distribution EOL is not ideal.
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Senior Software Engineer, Red Hat