On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:43 AM Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 June 2018 at 09:05, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 8:51 AM Petr Pisar <ppi...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 2018-06-21, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:17 AM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> > >> > wrote: > >> >> Will the repositories be enabled or disabled by default? > >> >> > >> > > >> > Enabled by default. Packaging policy will require that modules with a > >> > default stream may not override packages in the standard repo. > >> > > >> How are packagers supposed to implement a seamless move from a bare > >> package to > >> a module not to disrupt users? > >> > >> Example: I have a gscan2pdf package that I want to move to a module. > >> According to the policy firtst I have to remove the package from > >> a repository. Now the user cannot install the package. Then the module > >> review will be approved and the module built. And finally package is > >> available to users again. > >> > >> I don't think this is a great user experience. > > > > > > I oversimplified that last statement, sorry. I shouldn't post before > > breakfast. What you're requesting is permissible; if you are the > maintainer > > of a package and want to move it into a module with a default stream to > > replace the version in the standard repos, that's fine. > > > > My statement was more about protecting against "I have Node.js 8.x in the > > traditional repos, but 10.x in the default module stream, which overrides > > it, thus resulting in a different experience with and without the modular > > repos enabled." If you decide to replace a package with a module default > > stream, it will need to follow the stable updates policy for the current > > Fedora release. (So if I wanted to move from Node.js 8.x bare RPMs to a > > module, then the 8.x module stream would have to be the default, not > 10.x). > > > > Maybe I am misunderstanding it, but this is the scenario this brings up: > > Say I have a package which has now required NodeJS 10.x so I need to > put that as a requirement to fix a bug. In my mind, I am not replacing > Nodejs because it isn't my package.. it is just something that the OS > is providing. I put in the Requires and fix my problem.. > > To the user, that causes a problem because it then replaces their > Nodejs-8 they may have been using for some other app. > > What is going to warn me/stop me that I should not have done that > before the package gets into updates? > > It's going to fail the dependency check in Bodhi and you will get an email. If it depends on a non-default stream, then it must be built as a module that depends on that non-default stream.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/XEBETDJPR77F26HMVMXIMU4P7SNQ4ORG/
