On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 00:55 Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-06-20 at 23:48 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I just wanted to give you an update from my last discussions on > > #fedora-modularity and other places. > > > > # Problems definition > > > > * Default modules can't have conflicting dependenices > > * Changing dependencies in a stream is not supported > > > > # Why does libgit2 has to be a module? > > > > libgit2 is not just one package. It is an ecosystem. > > > > Right now libgit2 module provides libgit2 itself and python bindings. > > While we can obviously provide libgit2_0.26, libgit2_0.27 and such, > > this does not help us with python packages. Nobody in sane mind will > rename them > > and make them conflict (because they are not parallel-installable). > > > > I wanted to also add ruby bindings to a module, but I never got time > > to actually do it. > > > > # What about dependencies change? > > > > Let's not lock ourselves into libgit2 story, just take an abstract names. > > > > Module foo:rolling depends on bar:1. Name of stream "rolling" means to > serve > > purpose of "user-focused content meant for general use". That means, > > if foo's upstream decided to update their bar dependency to a new > version, > > foo:rolling maintainer would just switch dependency to bar:2. > > AIUI, the issue here is that *there should not be* bar:1 and bar:2. > Module streams are supposed to be 'functional' (as in your 'rolling' > example). They are not supposed to be version numbers. This needs to be > more clearly explained in the guidelines and enforced, but the way the > modularity concept turned out, version-based module streams are *wrong* > and should not exist. I recall earlier designs along the way actually > sort of envisaged version-based module streams, but that is not how > it's supposed to work in the final design. > But ... if it's not for different version streams, then what *is it* for? 🤔 (What about the plans to offer different versions of e.g. NodeJS via streams? Is that wrong then, too?) Being able to offer different versions is the only useful use-case I can think of, and if that's not the intended usage ... I don't know why we need it, or why somebody should use it at all ... Fabio -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
