On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 14. 11. 19 19:39, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> >>>
> >>>
On 14. 11. 19 20:58, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:33 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 11. 19 19:11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 01:00:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Thu,
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:33 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 14. 11. 19 19:11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 01:00:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:4
On 14. 11. 19 19:39, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
and non-modu
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 7:48 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> > >
> > > Enable module default streams in the buildroot
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:40 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> > >
> > > Enable module default streams in the buildroot
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:12 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> >
> > Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> > and non-modular RPMs.
> >
> > == Summary ==
On 14. 11. 19 19:11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 01:00:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szm
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:09 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 14. 11. 19 18:57, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >> On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončo
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 11:52 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > Similarly, from the perspective of dependent maintainers, there will
> > no longer be anxiety about needing to move their package to a module
> > if one or more of their dependencies drops their non-modular version
> > in favor of a default
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 01:00:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > >On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:
On 14. 11. 19 18:57, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproj
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:59 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >>On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:43:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buil
On 14. 11. 19 18:36, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for mod
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 06:08:52PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> >
> >Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> >and non-modular RPMs.
> >
> >== Summary =
On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
and non-modular RPMs.
== Summary ==
This Change (colloquially referred to as "Ursa Prime") enables the
Koji build-
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:47 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
>
> Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> and non-modular RPMs.
>
> == Summary ==
> This Change (colloquially referred to as "Ursa Prime")
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 04:15:57PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 13. 11. 19 18:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are
> > > inline.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > > On W
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 5:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 13. 11. 19 22:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
...
> So the buildroot enabled modular repository contains only the 2 approved
> modules
> including their modular metadata...
>
> >> "an enabled or default module"? Who enables a module in the b
On 13. 11. 19 22:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 13. 11. 19 18:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are inline.
Thank you.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
...
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 13. 11. 19 18:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are inline.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > ...
> >> What I miss in the descriptio
On 13. 11. 19 19:21, Miro Hrončok wrote:
What you are describing here sounds like we are doing Ursa Major, renamed to
Ursa Prime, because Ursa Prime was a no-go.
"because Ursa Major was a no-go"
Too many terms, sorry.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
On 13. 11. 19 18:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are inline.
Thank you.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
...
What I miss in the description is:
1. How does this thing actually work? is there an additional repos
Sorry for the long overdue reply here. Answers to your questions are inline.
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 6:46 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
...
> What I miss in the description is:
>
> 1. How does this thing actually work? is there an additional repository
> composed
> from the default streams available in
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 02:00:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 16:25 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > Christopher Engelhard writes:
> >
> > > On 18.10.19 17:21, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > >
> > > > While you're right that the solutions from source distros (i.e., NixOS
>
3) We need to get the policy I described above written onto -stone
> tablets- the Packaging Guidelines and then we need to go and make any
> stream that isn't compliant with it a non-default stream.
>
Thank you. If we want to use default streams, then we indeed need a strict
policy on how they are
On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 16:25 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Christopher Engelhard writes:
>
> > On 18.10.19 17:21, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> >
> > > While you're right that the solutions from source distros (i.e., NixOS
> > > and Gentoo) would be very hard to adapt, binary distros have also solved
Christopher Engelhard writes:
> On 18.10.19 17:21, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
>> While you're right that the solutions from source distros (i.e., NixOS
>> and Gentoo) would be very hard to adapt, binary distros have also solved
>> this problem in different ways. I'm most familiar with Debian's
>> s
On 18.10.19 17:21, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> While you're right that the solutions from source distros (i.e., NixOS
> and Gentoo) would be very hard to adapt, binary distros have also solved
> this problem in different ways. I'm most familiar with Debian's
> solution (virtual packages[2], provides:,
On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 11:43 AM Randy Barlow
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 11:21 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> > Obviously we
> > can't use their code wholesale without migrating to APT, but as you
> > say,
> > the goal is to derive inspiration.
>
> But yeah as you say here, my original point
On Fri, 2019-10-18 at 11:21 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Obviously we
> can't use their code wholesale without migrating to APT, but as you
> say,
> the goal is to derive inspiration.
I honestly think it should be on the table to consider switching to a
different packaging technology than rpm/dn
Stephen John Smoogen writes:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 14:15, Randy Barlow
> wrote:
>
>> Or better, can we employ a solution that another distribution has
>> developed?
>
> Not without using their packaging system, their build system and their
> other design choices. Working out slots would mean
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:09 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:53 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > That was a representative example. I came up with it at 11pm after a
> > > long day. Don't read too much into the specifics. The point was that
> > > builds may require newer or
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 15:04 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Not without using their packaging system, their build system and
> their
> other design choices.
Frankly, this is not a bad caveat. Keep in mind that we also had to
change our build system for modularity.
> Working out slots would
On 10/17/19 1:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 03:05:43PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>> Realistically, I believe that default streams themselves are something we
>> should avoid, if the cost is low, and it is. There are many users,
>> probably the vast majority of users,
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 9:33 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 03:05:43PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > Realistically, I believe that default streams themselves are something we
> > should avoid, if the cost is low, and it is. There are many users,
> > probably the vast ma
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 03:05:43PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> Realistically, I believe that default streams themselves are something we
> should avoid, if the cost is low, and it is. There are many users,
> probably the vast majority of users, that don't use Modularity. It's great
> to have
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 14:15, Randy Barlow wrote:
>
> Could we think of a solution that is simple so that packagers can more
> easily understand how it works?
The issue is how many different choices are you allowing and where you
are allowing them to be made. A lot of the gentoo and nixos seem t
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 08:08 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> One of the (often un- or misinformed) major arguments people keep
> using against Modularity is "it makes packaging harder!".
One thing I've found to be a problem with modularity is that it's easy
to be un- or misinformed. I spent a lot
- Original Message -
> From: "Randy Barlow"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 1:18:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular
> Buildroot
>
> On
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 12:56 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> I
> had to write a yaml file that listed hashes of every dependency of
> rpick, and every dependency of those dependencies, and their
> dependencies, and so on.
By the way, I didn't actually end up doing this, Igor did it for me. I
didn't me
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 10:52 -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> I've always liked Gentoo's solution to "too fast too slow"
> with their slots mechanism.
I realized it would be good if I explained what this is in more detail
for those who aren't familiar.
The slot is another field on the package, and the
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 08:08 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> One of the (often un- or misinformed) major arguments people keep
> using against Modularity is "it makes packaging harder!". This is one
> place where it makes things *much* easier on the packagers. It's a
> clear reduction in complexit
On Thu, 2019-10-17 at 03:53 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The user-friendly approach for that is to use a parallel-installable
> compatibility package (with a suffixed Name, such as django1.6)
> instead of a
> module.
I've always liked Gentoo's solution to "too fast too slow" (which has
been arou
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:37 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:33 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> > People regularly look at NEVRAs to identify whether there are
> > "broken"/"old" packages to clean up, and when you see .fc29 installed
> > on an otherwise .fc31 system, it looks lik
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 8:33 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> People regularly look at NEVRAs to identify whether there are
> "broken"/"old" packages to clean up, and when you see .fc29 installed
> on an otherwise .fc31 system, it looks like something has gone wrong.
> If packages are intended to be built o
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:53 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:48 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:42 AM Stephen Gallagher
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Similarly, the example of "build on Rawhide, run anywhere" was
> > > backwards. I should have said "bui
On 17. 10. 19 14:08, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:53 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
That was a representative example. I came up with it at 11pm after a
long day. Don't read too much into the specifics. The point was that
builds may require newer or older software than we have ava
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:53 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > That was a representative example. I came up with it at 11pm after a
> > long day. Don't read too much into the specifics. The point was that
> > builds may require newer or older software than we have available in
> > the non-modular buildro
On 17. 10. 19 13:41, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:17 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 17. 10. 19 2:41, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
For example, we might have packages whose buildsystem
still relies on Python 2 (WAF?) but doesn't require it at runtime.
We do have them. How does t
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:48 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:42 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > Similarly, the example of "build on Rawhide, run anywhere" was
> > backwards. I should have said "build on oldest supported Fedora, carry
> > through".
>
> Modules currently fail
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:42 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> Similarly, the example of "build on Rawhide, run anywhere" was
> backwards. I should have said "build on oldest supported Fedora, carry
> through".
Modules currently fail at this because they have a platform
dependency. And we could *ea
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:27 AM Jakub Cajka wrote:
> For Go this is oversimplification and common misconception(go built binaries
> are not uncommonly dynamically linked in the "C/ELF" sense(glibc,...) and
> statically linked in Go sense). It might work for some selected(maybe even
> most) Go
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 5:17 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 17. 10. 19 2:41, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > For example, we might have packages whose buildsystem
> > still relies on Python 2 (WAF?) but doesn't require it at runtime.
>
> We do have them. How does that relate to modularity at all?
>
T
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Gallagher"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 2:41:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular
> Buildroot
>
On 17. 10. 19 2:41, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
For example, we might have packages whose buildsystem
still relies on Python 2 (WAF?) but doesn't require it at runtime.
We do have them. How does that relate to modularity at all?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
__
On 16. 10. 19 19:28, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
1) This will be solved by the new Koji/MBS feature that we've
codenamed "Ursa Prime" (as a replacement for the original "Ursa Major"
tool that was built for RHEL 8). Unlike its predecessor, it requires
no additional daemon service running to handle th
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Not necessarily. It may be that we have to content ourselves with some
> software always requiring a module enablement to use it. For example,
> I maintain a module for Review Board, a Django-based code review tool.
> For complicated reasons, it cannot run against Django
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:42 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > 3) We need to get the policy I described above written onto -stone
> > > tablets- the Packaging Guidelines and then we need to go and make any
>
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 8:12 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > 3) We need to get the policy I described above written onto -stone
> > tablets- the Packaging Guidelines and then we need to go and make any
> > stream that isn't compliant with it a non-default stream.
>
> But th
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 3) We need to get the policy I described above written onto -stone
> tablets- the Packaging Guidelines and then we need to go and make any
> stream that isn't compliant with it a non-default stream.
But then we need a policy that requires a default version (non-modular o
On Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:30:21 PM MST Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:30:32PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > The idea is that it would act exactly the same way that dnf on the
> > local system would act: if you builddep software from a stream that
> > requires a n
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:30:32PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> The idea is that it would act exactly the same way that dnf on the
> local system would act: if you builddep software from a stream that
> requires a non-default stream, it would enable that non-default
> stream.
Ah, I see. Thank
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 2:41 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:28:37PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > 1) This will be solved by the new Koji/MBS feature that we've
> > codenamed "Ursa Prime" (as a replacement for the original "Ursa Major"
> > tool that was built for RHEL
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:28:37PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> 1) This will be solved by the new Koji/MBS feature that we've
> codenamed "Ursa Prime" (as a replacement for the original "Ursa Major"
> tool that was built for RHEL 8). Unlike its predecessor, it requires
> no additional daemon s
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 12:11 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:25 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > > So: I'm on board with most of what you say here, but there's no need to
> > > say it means Modularity is "a failure". It means right now it's not
> > > entirely baked and we'r
On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 12:25 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > So: I'm on board with most of what you say here, but there's no need to
> > say it means Modularity is "a failure". It means right now it's not
> > entirely baked and we're realizing the concept needs extending and
> > perhaps reworking a
Matthew Miller wrote:
> Upgrades need to work, though. And they need to work regardless of whether
> we ban default modules or not. So, given that, I'm not _really_ seeing big
> differences in practice for the user beteen these two proposals, and the
> one (no default streams) negates one of the wh
Joe Orton wrote:
> If you don't want to ship any of your packages as modules I think that's
> great and you should continue doing that. On the other hand, I want to
> move a bunch of my packages to module-only because I think I can do a
> better job serving Fedora users that way.
How so? That is
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:13 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> What's happening right now is the process of us trying something out
> and finding out where the problems are. That's what happens when you
> invent new stuff, it's harder than just carrying on doing the old
> stuff.
I agree Adam.
I think
Tomasz Torcz writes:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:56:11PM -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Matthew Miller writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> >>> As package maintainers we all make technical decisions which have
>> >>> significant impact on our users
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 01:56:11PM -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Matthew Miller writes:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>> As package maintainers we all make technical decisions which have
> >>> significant impact on our users every day - whether that's in
Matthew Miller writes:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>>> As package maintainers we all make technical decisions which have
>>> significant impact on our users every day - whether that's in the
>>> choice of defaults, choice of build flags, or whatever. Honestly
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:52 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:27 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:13 PM Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 11:35 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:22 AM Matthew Miller
>
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:27 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:13 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 11:35 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:22 AM Matthew Miller
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:13 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 11:35 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:22 AM Matthew Miller
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > > As package maintainers we all make technica
On Tue, 2019-10-15 at 11:35 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:22 AM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > As package maintainers we all make technical decisions which have
> > > > significant impact on our users every
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:22 AM Matthew Miller
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >As package maintainers we all make technical decisions which have
> > >significant impact on our users every day - whether that's in the choice
> > >of defaults, choice of
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >As package maintainers we all make technical decisions which have
> >significant impact on our users every day - whether that's in the choice
> >of defaults, choice of build flags, or whatever. Honestly delivering as
> >modules-vs-no
On 15. 10. 19 12:10, Joe Orton wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:44:46PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The net result of this proposed Change for the end user is still the same as
the status quo: They have to use modules whether they want to or not, the
choice is taken away from them. And while the
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:44:46PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The net result of this proposed Change for the end user is still the same as
> the status quo: They have to use modules whether they want to or not, the
> choice is taken away from them. And while the default stream approach tries
>
Joe Orton wrote:
> I find myself a bit reluctant to write this mail because the language
> others are using in this thread is fairly ugly for a technical
> discussion in an open source project - about "forcing" people to develop
> packages in a certain way, "teaching them a lesson" etc. Please cal
On 10. 10. 19 0:46, Miro Hrončok wrote:> What I miss in the description is:
1. How does this thing actually work? is there an additional repository composed
from the default streams available in Koji only?
2. How are conflicts between packages from the default streams and ursine
package be h
On 14. 10. 19 15:44, Joe Orton wrote:
I find myself a bit reluctant to write this mail because the language
others are using in this thread is fairly ugly for a technical
discussion in an open source project - about "forcing" people to develop
packages in a certain way, "teaching them a lesson" e
On 14. 10. 19 12:16, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
and non-modular RPMs.
== Summary ==
This Change (colloquially referred to as "Ursa Prime") enables the
Koji build-system to include the RPM artifacts provided by module
default streams
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 04:46:52PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
>
> Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> and non-modular RPMs.
>
> == Summary ==
> This Change (colloquially referred to as "Urs
On 14.10.2019 12:16, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> To be clear, I propose the following:
> * All packages MUST have a default version in any given Fedora release.
> * The default version MUST be shipped as non-modular (not as a modular
> default stream).
> * It follows that packages cannot be module-only
On Monday, October 14, 2019 3:16:27 AM MST Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> > and non-modular RPMs.
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > This Change (colloquially referred to as "Ursa Prime") enables the
> > Koji build-system to include the RPM a
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019, 12:47 Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:02:46PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > > You seem to totally miss the point - there is no one even trying to
> ship
> > > Maven as a traditional package so what should we do give up o
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:02:46PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > You seem to totally miss the point - there is no one even trying to ship
> > Maven as a traditional package so what should we do give up on having
> > anything built with Maven in the distro?
>
> If modu
On Thursday, October 10, 2019 5:59:16 PM CEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 10. 10. 19 17:46, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 12:52 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>
> >> On 09. 10. 19 22:46, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> >>
> Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> and non-modular RPMs.
>
> == Summary ==
> This Change (colloquially referred to as "Ursa Prime") enables the
> Koji build-system to include the RPM artifacts provided by module
> default streams in the buildroot when buildin
Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> You seem to totally miss the point - there is no one even trying to ship
> Maven as a traditional package so what should we do give up on having
> anything built with Maven in the distro?
If module-only packages finally get banned (as they should have been from
the on
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:06 PM Fabio Valentini
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:43 AM Aleksandar Kurtakov
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM John M. Harris Jr
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 11:42:41 PM MST Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:43 AM Aleksandar Kurtakov
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM John M. Harris Jr
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 11:42:41 PM MST Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 9:00 AM John M. Harris Jr
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Wednesda
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM John M. Harris Jr
wrote:
> On Sunday, October 13, 2019 11:42:41 PM MST Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 9:00 AM John M. Harris Jr
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:46:52 PM MST Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > >
> https://fedorapro
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 11:42:41 PM MST Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 9:00 AM John M. Harris Jr
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:46:52 PM MST Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> > >
> > > Enabl
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 9:00 AM John M. Harris Jr
wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:46:52 PM MST Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
> >
> > Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> > and non-modular R
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:46:52 PM MST Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modules_In_Non-Modular_Buildroot
>
> Enable module default streams in the buildroot repository for modular
> and non-modular RPMs.
>
> == Summary ==
> This Change (colloquially referred to as "
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
