I would like to open discussions more widely, because we are talking about future of software distribution and discussing only particular issue is not an approach how to delivery solid and stable architecture.
What issues I have in mind? 1. Fedora system upgrade (libgit2, axa, bat) 2. Adding new stream into distribution - will result in an error 3. Removal of stream from distribution - dependent module on removed stream will creates modular dependency error 4. Changing stream dependency - dependency issue 5. Removal of module from distribution (replaced by non-modular packages) Fail safe data will persist forever 6. Upgrade path between contexts This will help with modular dependency resolution 7. Upgrade path between module streams So far this is not described or part of the design 8. Module switching At the present time this is completely disabled for stability reasons 9. Changing defaults o redesign of defaults - defaults have the same behavior like enabled modules. Only problems with defaults are less critical. Some of requirements are in conflict. Like user must be not able to switch a stream by accident but stream must be changed automatically in other example. Resolving each of this points have consequences in behavior on other parts of modularity and rpm environment therefore any change must be planned well. Some issues could be resolved by additional data in metadata like obsoletes, information about substreams. Others by changing implementation in dnf/libdnf. The last important part is represented by packaging restrictions, guidelines (people must know limitation of technology). Lets also ask question what we can change for Fedora 31, 32, or 33? Jaroslav On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:57 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > Right now, there are two conflicting requirements in Fedora Modularity > that we need to resolve. > > 1. Once a user has selected a stream, updates should follow that > stream and not introduce incompatiblities. Selected streams should not > be changed without direct action from the user. > 2. So far as possible, Modularity should be invisible to those who > don't specifically need it. This means being able to set default > streams so that `yum install package` works for module-provided > content. > > Where this becomes an issue is at system-upgrade time (moving from > Fedora 30->31 or continuously tracking Rawhide). Because of > requirement 1, we cannot automatically move users between streams, but > in the case of release upgrades we often want to move to a new default > for the distribution. > > > The Modularity WG has generally agreed that we want and need to > support behavior of the following use-cases: > > > Use Case 1: > > On Fedora 30, user Alice runs > > yum install Foo > > The package "Foo" is provided by a module "foo" with a default stream > "v1.0". Because it's available in a default stream, the package is > installed and the module stream "foo:v1.0" is implicitly enabled for > the system. > > > > Fedora 31 is released. On Fedora 31, the module "foo" has a new > default stream "v1.1". When upgrading from Fedora 30 to Fedora 31, > Alice expects the package Foo she installed to be upgraded to version > 1.1, because that's what would have happened if it was provided as a > package from the non-modular repositories. > > > > Use Case 2: > > On Fedora 30, user Bob runs > > yum enable foo:v1.0 > > In this case, the "v1.0" stream of the "foo" module has a dependency > on the "v2.4" stream of the "bar" module. So when enabling "foo:v1.0", > the system also implicitly enables "bar:v2.4". > > > > Fedora 31 is released. On Fedora 31, the module stream "foo:v1.0" now > depends on "bar:v2.5" instead of "bar:v2.4". The user, caring only > about "foo:v1.0" would expect the upgrade to complete, adjusting the > dependencies as needed. > > > At Flock and other discussions, we've generally come up with a > solution, but it's not yet recorded anywhere. I'm sending it out for > wider input, but this is more or less the solution we intend to run > with, barring someone finding a severe flaw. > > Proposed Solution: > > What happens today is that once the stream is set, it is fixed and > unchangeable except by user decision. Through discussions with UX > folks, we've more or less come to the decision that the correct > behavior is as follows: > > * The user's "intention" should be recorded at the time of module > enablement. Currently, module streams can exist in four states: > "available, enabled, disabled, default". We propose that there should > be two additional states (names TBD) representing implicit enablement. > The state "enabled" would be reserved for any stream that at some > point was enabled by name. For example, a user who runs `yum install > freeipa:DL1` is making a conscious choice to install the DL1 stream of > freeipa. A user who runs `yum install freeipa-client` is instead > saying "give me whatever freeipa-client is the default". > > * The state `dep_enabled` would be set whenever a stream becomes > enabled because some other module stream depended on it. This state > must be entered only if the previous state was `default` or > `available`. (We don't want `enabled` or `disabled` streams being able > to transition to this state.) > > * The state `default_enabled` would be set whenever a stream becomes > enabled because a transaction pulled in a package from a default > stream, causing it to be enabled. This state must only be entered if > the previous state was `default` or `dep_enabled`. We don't want > `enabled` or `disabled` to be able to transition to `default_enabled`. > If a user requests installation of a package provided by a stream > currently in the `dep_enabled` state, that stream should transition to > the `default_enabled` state (meaning that now the user would expect it > to be treated the same as any other default-enabled stream). > > * When running `dnf update`, if a module stream's dependency on > another module changes to another stream, the transaction should cause > that new stream to be enabled (replacing the current stream) if it is > in the `dep_enabled` state. > When running `dnf update` or `dnf system-upgrade`, if the default > stream for a module installed on the system changes and the module's > current state is `default_enabled`, then the transaction should cause > the new default stream to be enabled. > > * If stream switching during an update or upgrade would result in > other module dependency issues, that MUST be reported and returned to > the user. > > This requires some constraints to be placed on default and dependency > changes: > > * Any stream upgrade such as this must guarantee that any artifacts of > the stream that is exposed as "API" MUST support RPM-level package > upgrades from any previous stream in this stable release. (Example: > "freeipa:DL"1 depends on a the "pki-core:3.8" stream at Fedora 30 > launch. Later updates move this to depending on "pki-core:3.9" and > even later "pki-core:3.10". In this case the packages from > "pki-core:3.10" must have a safe upgrade path from both "pki-core:3.8" > and "pki-core:3.9" since we cannot guarantee or force our users to > update regularly and they might miss some of the intermediate ones. >
_______________________________________________ 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
