On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, Owen Taylor <otay...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:51 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > As came up in another part of the earlier thread, I think this is an > > opportunity for Modularity. For those things like GNOME that want to > > rev mid-release, if they shipped the 3.34 release as new stream, those > > that want to move to it will have that option, and those who fear > > change can remain on the 3.32 release, even if it's not getting > > support. This would have to be something communicated at release-time > > of course. > > If we want to offer optional GNOME-3.34, a module is probably a better > alternative to using a copr - which is what we did last time. > (https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/rhughes/f20-gnome-3-12/) But > we have to recognize that if we create such a module we are > effectively creating a Fedora 30.1 - because libraries in that module > will replace system libraries. From the point where we release such a > module, any RPM-packaged applications that use GNOME libraries will > have to be tested against *both* F30 and F30+gnome-3-34. > > It's also a minimally scalable approach - we wouldn't want to have a > GNOME 3.34 module and a NetworkManager-1.16 module and support > arbitrary combinations. > > And we'd have to figure out some strategy for not breaking F31 updates > when you have the desktop:3.34 module enabled. > > > I don't think modules are useful for non self contained package sets (like a desktop environment). As you said we might end up having half the distro in that module.
_______________________________________________ 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
