Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, 10 December 2019 at 13:38, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 05. 11. 19 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I'm sure there are other pain points and I encourage you to share > > them. Please adhere to the guidelines about objectively measurable > > issues, though. > > M5. Modular packages are l

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 05. 11. 19 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I'm sure there are other pain points and I encourage you to share them. Please adhere to the guidelines about objectively measurable issues, though. M5. Modular packages are less secure than the nonmodular packages, because known security vulnerab

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Hi, Vit, On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:57 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 14. 11. 19 v 16:13 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:19 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> I wonder who is doing to clean up all the mess in dist-git we have due > >> to modularity. specifically, I wonder abo

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 12:17:10 PM MST Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:52:21PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > That said, we *do* need to improve things and find new ways to make > > Fedora appealing to more people, especially newer-generation infra > > types and software

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:52:21PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > That said, we *do* need to improve things and find new ways to make > Fedora appealing to more people, especially newer-generation infra > types and software developers. Otherwise, we'll lose the pipeline of > fresh blood into the projec

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 11/14/19 10:52 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:49 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 14. 11. 19 22:30, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:24 PM Miro Hrončok mailto:mhron...@redhat.com>> wrote: > >> Easy is su

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Hi Igor On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 10:03 Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: Le 2019-11-14 22:01, Stephen Gallagher a écrit : wrote: On 14. 11. 19 21:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote: I proposed earlier around the major upgrade rebuilds (letting us set other modules as `buildrequires:` of `python:

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Dne 14. 11. 19 v 16:13 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:19 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> I wonder who is doing to clean up all the mess in dist-git we have due >> to modularity. specifically, I wonder about all these branches: >> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/nodejs/

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Except that modular packages shadow non-modular so instead of getting proper package you will have broken dependency. On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 10:03 Nicolas Mailhot via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Le 2019-11-14 22:01, Stephen Gallagher a écrit : > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:00 P

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le 2019-11-14 22:01, Stephen Gallagher a écrit : On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 14. 11. 19 21:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >I proposed earlier around the major > upgrade rebuilds (letting us set other modules as `buildrequires:` of > `python: [ ]` for stream expansion)

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I really feel like we are approaching the finish line and shouldn’t give > up just yet! Unfortunately, the feeling that I get is that what looks like a finish line to you is actually the edge of a deep cliff. ;-) To explain my metaphore: I think the biggest trouble and

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > You're assuming that parallel-install is a thing that everyone needs > from every package on their system. Our research and surveys > determined that this was not in fact the case for the overwhelming > majority of real-world deployments. Most[1] deployments function with

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 5:29 PM Kevin Kofler > wrote: >> What about libgit2, was that not a default stream? > > It was not. It was a dependency of other modules. So it looks like we really also (in addition to the proposed ban on default streams) need a ban on non-lea

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 8:19 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Modular packages without defaults makes sense if they have > > dependencies on a non-default stream. For example: ReviewBoard depends > > on the Django:1.6 stream because of complicated upstream reasons. I > > hav

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 15. 11. 19 2:18, Kevin Kofler wrote: Stephen Gallagher wrote: Modular packages without defaults makes sense if they have dependencies on a non-default stream. For example: ReviewBoard depends on the Django:1.6 stream because of complicated upstream reasons. I have to choose between "modular w

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Modular packages without defaults makes sense if they have > dependencies on a non-default stream. For example: ReviewBoard depends > on the Django:1.6 stream because of complicated upstream reasons. I > have to choose between "modular without a default stream" or "not >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:49 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 14. 11. 19 22:30, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:24 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: > > > >> Easy is subjective. I don't consider this easy. I consider it seriously > >> overcomplicated. The idea that going modular will so

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 14. 11. 19 22:30, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: Easy is subjective. I don't consider this easy. I consider it seriously overcomplicated. The idea that going modular will somehow help with current problems in modularity is exactly what happened

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:24 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Easy is subjective. I don't consider this easy. I consider it seriously > overcomplicated. The idea that going modular will somehow help with current > problems in modularity is exactly what happened to eclipse. No, what happened to Eclipse i

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 14. 11. 19 22:01, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 14. 11. 19 21:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 14. 11. 19 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a mor

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

- Original Message - > From: "Stephen Gallagher" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 9:32:30 PM > Subject: Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:28 PM M

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

- Original Message - > From: "Stephen Gallagher" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 9:15:38 PM > Subject: Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:04

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 14. 11. 19 21:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 14. 11. 19 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >>> Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a more interesting question... > >>

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 14. 11. 19 21:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 14. 11. 19 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a more interesting question... The way Python is designed, 3.7 and 3.8 is parallel installable by default

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 14. 11. 19 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a more interesting question... > > The way Python is designed, 3.7 and 3.8 is parallel installable by default. > > The only things that conflict are:

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 14. 11. 19 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a more interesting question... The way Python is designed, 3.7 and 3.8 is parallel installable by default. The only things that conflict are: - package names, such as python3 or python3-pytest - executab

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 3:17 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 06. 11. 19 8:29, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > M2. > > > > For traditional packages, it was consistent and easy to find package > > dependencies in Fedora. For a proven packager, Fedora Packaging Committee > > member > > or generally for anybod

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:04 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:45:22 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > You're assuming that parallel-install is a thing that everyone needs > > from every package on their system. > > I'm not. However, if you're going to bring up 't

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 06. 11. 19 8:29, Miro Hrončok wrote: M2. For traditional packages, it was consistent and easy to find package dependencies in Fedora. For a proven packager, Fedora Packaging Committee member or generally for anybody doing a System Wide Change, being able to run queries like: $ repoquery

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le jeudi 14 novembre 2019 à 13:45 -0500, Stephen Gallagher a écrit : > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:33 PM John M. Harris Jr < > joh...@splentity.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:15:15 AM MST Stephen Gallagher > > wrote: > > > I'm not sure what you're asking here. I thought it was pret

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:45:22 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote: > You're assuming that parallel-install is a thing that everyone needs > from every package on their system. I'm not. However, if you're going to bring up 'the recommended solution for doing "parallel-install" with modules',

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 1:33 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:15:15 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I'm not sure what you're asking here. I thought it was pretty clear > > from the paragraph you quoted that containers are the recommended > > solution for doing

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:15:15 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I'm not sure what you're asking here. I thought it was pretty clear > from the paragraph you quoted that containers are the recommended > solution for doing "parallel-install" with modules. Also, the > relationship goes both

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:24 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > Yes, we acknowledge that with multiple versions comes the risks of > > introducing more conflicts. We balanced that out by acknowledging that > > the container space is now mature enough that separating userspaces > > when you need to r

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:23 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > > Believe me, I wish that the ideal distribution was possible too. The > > reality is that the world has gone in a different direction and Fedora > > needs to adapt to that. Holding the line and refusing to budge just > > means people w

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thursday, November 14, 2019 6:51:05 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote: > What you are saying is that *you* don't like what you are hearing > about modules. And that's fine; some of your feedback has been > constructive and we're taking it into account. But assuming that you > represent the whole of

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:19 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > I wonder who is doing to clean up all the mess in dist-git we have due > to modularity. specifically, I wonder about all these branches: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/nodejs/branches?branchname=master > > https://src.fedoraproject.

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

I wonder who is doing to clean up all the mess in dist-git we have due to modularity. specifically, I wonder about all these branches: https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/nodejs/branches?branchname=master https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs/branches?branchname=master What is their state

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Dne 13. 11. 19 v 21:48 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: >>> Here you seem to be missing the third option packager may choose - >>> maintain none of them and say bye to Fedora. Which IMHO is the most likely >>> outcome

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:09 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 13. 11. 19 23:27, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > So I guess the proposal is underspecified. What I really propose, and how I > > read Miro's proposal as well (Miro, please correct me if that is not what > > you intend), is that 1. any package tha

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 5:29 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > 1) there are exactly 6 default streams in Fedora rawhide > > > > dwm > > avocado > > scala > > ant > > gimp > > maven > > > > and eclipse is being discussed. > > What about libgit2, was that not a default stream

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 13. 11. 19 23:27, Kevin Kofler wrote: So I guess the proposal is underspecified. What I really propose, and how I read Miro's proposal as well (Miro, please correct me if that is not what you intend), is that 1. any package that exists in a module MUST have a default version and that 2. that v

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I'm wondering what you mean by "module mangling bits" here, because > what you described here is pretty much *exactly what module builds > do*. I think Neal means the special treatment the modules get on the client (DNF) end. Kevin Kofler __

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > 1) there are exactly 6 default streams in Fedora rawhide > > dwm > avocado > scala > ant > gimp > maven > > and eclipse is being discussed. What about libgit2, was that not a default stream? And what we are missing here is a list of modular packages with no default

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > You don't want to do that for libraries in general. Well yes. But the thing is, I am not convinced that this is universally agreed on, unfortunately. What I really worry about is a scenario where, say, the KDE module includes NetworkManager version x, and the GNOME mo

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 4:01 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > > > Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > > Here you seem to be missing the third option packager may choose - > > > > mai

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:49 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > > Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > Here you seem to be missing the third option packager may choose - > > > maintain none of them and say bye to Fedora. Which IMHO is the most li

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:34 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > Here you seem to be missing the third option packager may choose - > > maintain none of them and say bye to Fedora. Which IMHO is the most likely > > outcome of all this. > > "Say bye to Fedora" is what I am goi

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > Here you seem to be missing the third option packager may choose - > maintain none of them and say bye to Fedora. Which IMHO is the most likely > outcome of all this. "Say bye to Fedora" is what I am going to do if this forced modularity madness is not going to stop,

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le mardi 12 novembre 2019 à 16:09 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen a écrit : > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 15:36, Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen < > > smo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The technology allows you to do this. The policy can restrict this.

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:25 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > 1) I don't think Modularity is about being LTS and "enterprisy". > > Lifecycle differences are not the only feature Modularity provides. > > > > I see Modularity as a tool which bridges the gap between container

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le 2019-11-13 10:14, Aleksandra Fedorova a écrit : Exactly the same way as "stay away" won't work for automatic BuildRequires generator feature, which we voted for in this cycle. Sure you can, automated BRs are a specific section in the spec file, staying away no more complex that not filling

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:04 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:18 AM Aleksandar Kurtakov > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:17 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> > >> Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > >> > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in mod

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:00 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 12. 11. 19 18:25, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> > >> On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > >>> Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > >>> t

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 6:18 AM Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:17 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: >> >> Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: >> > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in modules? >> >> I see 2 reasons so far why some packages are module-only: >> 1. be

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le 2019-11-13 07:39, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : Le mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 06:43 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot via devel a And anyway, if anyone feels the module design is actually needed (I don’t, because the problems are elsewhere), it could have been *easily* implemented within existing tools,

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 13. 11. 19 6:17, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:17 AM Kevin Kofler > wrote: Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in modules? I see 2 reasons so far why some packages are modul

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 06:43 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot via devel a écrit : > > Fedora modules are an horrifically complex way to pretend those basic > three constrains do not exist, while actually implementing them > (except in a broken non-working way, because the *pretence* is that > the c

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 06:43 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot via devel a écrit : > > The native Go component format (also, confusingly, named > module) handles those 3 constrains and won't present any core > difficulty in rpm packaging once it is finished upstream. And, BTW, we added auto-buildere

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le mercredi 13 novembre 2019 à 00:19 +0200, Aleksandar Kurtakov a écrit : > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:02 AM John M. Harris Jr < > joh...@splentity.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 9:02:07 AM MST Aleksandra Fedorova > > wrote: > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 3:17 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in modules? > > I see 2 reasons so far why some packages are module-only: > 1. because a dependency of the package is module-only. That is exactly what >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Modular builds have metadata that can indicate to consumers which > subpackages in this module should be considered "API". If a module > produces a package artifact and does not list it thusly, it is meant > to be treated as an internal implementation detail of the module

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in modules? I see 2 reasons so far why some packages are module-only: 1. because a dependency of the package is module-only. That is exactly what we want to prevent by proposing a ban on module-only packages. 2

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > The way Eclipse is treated makes me really sad and kind of regret the time > spent on Fedora over the years! Being forced to be a module but blocked to > be default stream by FESCo arguing over whether it wants modularity > (sorry, this is how it looks) is the best way

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: >> Ursa Prime effort achieves the same goal. It removes the "viral" part >> of Modularity I think. > > That is absolutely its purpose. If we fall short of that, it's a bug > and we will fix it as soon as pos

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Igor Gnatenko wrote: > You say we need to improve tooling and iterate fast, fine. But why then > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7662 is still not implemented? I understand > that it is opensource And everyone can contribute, but the fact is that > people who work on Modularity tooling is entirely p

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > 1) I don't think Modularity is about being LTS and "enterprisy". > Lifecycle differences are not the only feature Modularity provides. > > I see Modularity as a tool which bridges the gap between container > world and a packaged distribution. > > Without modularity we

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

You mean like quota-devel? Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 12, 2019, at 4:14 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 22:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:03 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski >>> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 12 Nov

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > tooling right now. > > As Fedora developer you have a choice to join the effort, bring your > input and use cases, try and test (and revert if it doesn't work) or > you can stay away from it and keep using same tools as before. > W

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 12. 11. 19 18:25, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity tooling right now. As Fedora developer you have a choice to join the effort, br

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:26 AM Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > You say we need to improve tooling and iterate fast, fine. But why then > > https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7662 is still not implemented? On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 03:15:06PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > To be clear, the team that r

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 3:19:59 PM MST Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > So people would prefer no packages at all over packages in modules? I ask > this as the traditional rpm way of doing is simply not working and that's > the reason why many of us (old time Java packagers) just gave up, it's >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:02 AM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 9:02:07 AM MST Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > tooling right now. > > This is not actually the case. We have several major packages which a

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, at 3:35 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:26, Aleksandra Fedorova > > wrote: > > > Again I fail to see the _technical_ difference between the ursine rpm > > > package and a packag

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 9:02:07 AM MST Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > tooling right now. This is not actually the case. We have several major packages which are ONLY available as modules, for example. -- John M. Harris, Jr.

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:49:06 AM MST Vít Ondruch wrote: > > 1) I don't think Modularity is about being LTS and "enterprisy". > > Lifecycle differences are not the only feature Modularity provides. > > > > I see Modularity as a tool which bridges the gap between container > > world and a pa

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:17 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 22:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:03 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 21:15, Stephe

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 22:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:03 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > [...] > > > I agree with Aleksandra here. And we *did* establish that our policy > >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 15:36, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:26, Aleksandra Fedorova > > wrote: > > > Again I fail to see the _technical_ difference between the ursine rpm > > > package and a package

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:03 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > [...] > > I agree with Aleksandra here. And we *did* establish that our policy > > going forward is that we will forbid any default stream from providing > >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tuesday, 12 November 2019 at 21:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote: [...] > I agree with Aleksandra here. And we *did* establish that our policy > going forward is that we will forbid any default stream from providing > non-API content. (Filtered out packages are orthogonal to this.) What does that ev

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:29 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:20 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:10 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:03 AM Aleksandra Fedorova > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Again, no one forces you or an

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 1:32 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:03 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:55 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, Aleksandar, > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:40 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > The way Eclipse is treated makes me really sad and kind of regret the time > spent on Fedora over the years! Being forced to be a module but blocked to be > default stream by FESCo arguing over whether it wants modularity (sorry, this

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:26, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > Again I fail to see the _technical_ difference between the ursine rpm > > package and a package which was built as a part of default stream. It > > is the same rpm spec fr

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 12:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > > tooling right now. > > > > > > As Fedora develop

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:20 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:10 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:03 AM Aleksandra Fedorova > > wrote: > > > > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > > tooling right now. > > > > >

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:10 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:03 AM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: > > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > tooling right now. > > > > This is not true. Once content is modularized, things that were able > to d

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:26 AM Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > The question arises, what people are supposed to do when they modularized > content because modularity is (was?) good tool to have "buildroot-only > packages," "separate lifecycle from Fedora" and "no difference from normal > packages."

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:03 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:55 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: >> >> Hi, Aleksandar, >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:40 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova >>

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Hi Stephen, On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:26, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > > Again, no one forces you or any ot

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:55 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > Hi, Aleksandar, > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:40 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: > >> > > >>

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Hi, Aleksandar, On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 6:40 PM Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> > >> > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: >> > > Again, no one forces you or

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:31 PM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > > tooling right now. > > > > > > As Fedora developer

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 12:26, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > > tooling right now. > > > > > > As Fedora developer

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > > tooling right now. > > > > As Fedora developer you have a choice to join the effort, bring your > > input and use cases,

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Le mardi 12 novembre 2019 à 17:02 +0100, Aleksandra Fedorova a écrit : > Hi, Igor, > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > > > wrote: > > > > > > So is it really about making tooling (writing new,

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On 12. 11. 19 17:02, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity tooling right now. As Fedora developer you have a choice to join the effort, bring your input and use cases, try and test (and revert if it doesn't work) or you can stay away from it

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:03 AM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > tooling right now. > This is not true. Once content is modularized, things that were able to depend on it in the normal form can no longer do so unless they too modul

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Hi, Igor, On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 4:20 PM Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019, 14:13 Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:50 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi. >> > I've been silent so far, while mostly agreeing with the "let's j

  1   2   >