On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:38 PM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 8:50 AM Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > > I'm wary of assuming that this thread represents the whole of Fedoran > > opinions, however. As we all know, it's generally the set of people who are > > upset that speak up the loudest. I'm not discounting your concerns (far > > from it!), but if we only base development decisions on "make sure no one > > is upset about it", we'd never accomplish anything new at all. This is why > > when I've been sending out these emails to discuss ideas, I've been trying > > to carefully describe both the use-cases and the technical limitations > > (both intrinsic to the design and those that are the result of imperfect > > implementation) each time. It's somewhat disheartening to hear responses > > that largely boil down to "If you can't get it perfectly right, stop > > trying!". > > At least this Fedora packager is getting super burned out with the > number of problems caused in his day to day by the creation of > module-only software in Fedora. I've never really had a problem with > the idea of modules for alternative software, but I deeply despise the > dependency on modularity for "default" software (per modularity > parlance). > > I still don't have a good grasp of what to do anymore for packaging. > I've edged away from packaging anything that involves modularity in > Fedora proper because it's just too complex for me to grok. > > And as a third party packager, I really don't want to deal with > modules for "default distro" setups. How am I supposed to make my > software compatible with all of the potential module filters imposed > on me by DNF? I don't know how to deal with depending on content > existing in default modules either...
For whatever it is worth, I agree with everything Neal wrote too. Before things are rolled out further, I'd like to see some policies agreed upon for what modularity is and isn't allowed for in Fedora: what are the rules for default streams, buildroot only modules, modularizing non-leaf packages, etc. It feels like we don't or haven't agreed on what we actually want to use modularity for *in Fedora*. There could very well be things that modularity should support for RHEL that don't make sense for Fedora... and I think there's fear that this distinction isn't being made at the moment. Or that the decisions have already been made. It's certainly true that the loudest and most unhappy voices tend to dominate discussions, but so far I haven't seen many people speak up who are enthusiastic about modularity who aren't also involved in it in some way. Granted, that could well change over time as improvements are made-- I think the Java Situation has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth-- but it still seems like this is a good time to reflect on the current implementation of modularity, what its benefits are, what we want it to do, and if it's doing what we want it to do. Ben Rosser _______________________________________________ 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
