On Mon, 22 Jun 2020, 02:57 clime, <cl...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 01:59, Josh Boyer <jwbo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 5:51 PM clime <cl...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 15:25, Josh Boyer <jwbo...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:05 AM Igor Raits > > > > <ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > > > Hash: SHA512 > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 08:44 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > Hopefully that provides some context and helps FESCo and the > wider > > > > > > community understand where Red Hat is headed with modularity on > the > > > > > > Enterprise side. > > > > > > > > > > Sadly no. It helps to understand your plans, however it does not > help > > > > > to understand the reasons behind, whether you can't change UX in > the > > > > > RHEL 9, or you think that technology is good enough for your > use-cases > > > > > or any other reasons. > > > > > > > > The base requirement is that the UX remain largely the same. As I > > > > said, from a RHEL perspective, we need RHEL 8 and RHEL 9 to have > > > > commonality so that our customers are not forced to learn something > > > > entirely different to adopt RHEL 9. Improvements in the underlying > > > > functionality are of course welcome and planned, but we are not going > > > > to do something like replace modules with a different artifact type, > > > > > > Hello Josh, > > > > > > you can change the artifact type while keeping interface the same and > > > it would be a _HUGE_ win because it would make modularity finally > > > understandable for mere humans and better maintainable. > > > > > > Namely, modules should become rpms and therefore obey standard rpm > rules. > > > > I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean, but it sounds like > > you have some interesting ideas. > > > > I'm looking forward to seeing what you and the community can build > > from them, and how they could be brought into RHEL 10+! That kind of > > collaboration is what makes Fedora great. > > I know this probably won't change anything because this was mentioned > many times (by me at least) and nothing has changed but still... > > Currently, modules are essentially yum sub-repos, they are not really > "modules", instead they are collections of rpms that reinvent rpm-like > relations (obsoletes, requires, build-requires, etc.). > > There is no reason for this wheel-reintervention. Modules (the > collections) can be simply squashed into an rpm by automation and this > resulting rpm can go to the modular repo together with other modules. > > That way we don't have two types of objects we complex inter-relations > but only one we well-known behavior. > > I wonder if this is clear to everyone but nobody really cares or > doesn't really want to say it or I don't know. > > Is this clear to everyone? I mean either I am stating an obvious stuff > that nobody really considers worth typing or idk. >
How would this work when there are optional rpms in the module? You do not need to install every rpm in eg the php module (different graphics/database backends) for that module to be useful, but every version of the module will have the rpm as an option which wont work outside a module of multiple rpms. >
_______________________________________________ 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
