On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 04:36:17PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I have been worried about a negative feedback loop here on
packagers.
This is a new technology and packagers aren't usually people who care
about EPEL. Having them to deal with multiple OS's they don't use
makes it more likely they don't want to put stuff in modules in the
first place. I would prefer to be looser on the uptake of modules to
get people comfortable with them in Fedora first. I also don't expect
a large demand for modules in EPIC.
Modules solve two problems for EPIC:
First, since each module has a lifecycle definition, they make it easy
to maintain packages for EPIC without the 10-year commitment (or,
indeed, any more commitment then the packager makes in Fedora). And
that works both ways: as a consumer, I can know up front what lifecycle
I can (at least nominally) expect from a given module stream.
Second, I *do* think there are a lot of cases where different EPIC
users will want different versions. The Django module we have in Fedora
now would be immediately useful.
I do also worry about the possible negative feedback loop. I suggest we
start _building_ for EL by default but not tagging into the repo. Make
_that_ opt-in.
>> Extra Packages Inter Community.
> Extra Packages for Impassioned Community?
> Extra Packages Included by Community?
> Extra Packages Introduced by Community?
> Extra Packages Including Community?
> Extra Packages for Innnnnterprise Community? (Or "EPEC"?)
Extra Packages for Introverted Communities
Extroverted Packages for Introverted Communities!
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader