Re: Modularity and all the things

On 2019-12-05, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > --===6343409591866461936== > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="3a3ad80598f34f04" > > --3a3ad80598f34f04 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > On

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:13 PM Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2019-11-19, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:42:31 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote: > >> Manual work. Random commiters skipping them. > > > > If your goal is to make it so that "Random commiters" are packagers, > that's

Re: Modularity and all the things

On 2019-11-19, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:42:31 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote: >> Manual work. Random commiters skipping them. > > If your goal is to make it so that "Random commiters" are packagers, that's > going to fall flat very quickly - as they'll just throw one

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:42:31 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote: > Manual work. Random commiters skipping them. If your goal is to make it so that "Random commiters" are packagers, that's going to fall flat very quickly - as they'll just throw one version of the package in, never think about it

Re: Modularity and all the things

On 2019-11-18, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Petr Pisar wrote: >> In your example the the packager maintains 4 versions (in the sense of >> dist-git branches and builds submitted to Koji) of the software >> (FXX fish 3, FXX+1 fish 4, stream 3 fish 3, stream 4 fish 4). >> >> That's exactly what you as a

Re: Modularity and all the things

Petr Pisar wrote: > In your example the the packager maintains 4 versions (in the sense of > dist-git branches and builds submitted to Koji) of the software > (FXX fish 3, FXX+1 fish 4, stream 3 fish 3, stream 4 fish 4). > > That's exactly what you as a package does not want. Igor's approach >

Re: Modularity and all the things

On 2019-10-24, Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM Igor Gnatenko < > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> This is also not only about maintainers, but end >> users too: >> >> FXX: fish 3.x is non-modular, stream 4.x exists >> FXX+1: fish 4.x is non-modular, stream 3.x

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 04:30 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > I don't think that's a fair characterization. For example, the FESCo > representative is appointed by FESCo, which is 100% community- > elected. > > Breaking it down, three seats (FPL, FCAIC, FPgM) are positions for > specific Red Hat

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 2:10 PM Randy Barlow wrote: > > Only two of the council seats are elected. The rest are appointed, and > some of those appointed only by specific Red Hat employees. > > Thus, I don't think it's exactly the same opportunities to participate > in leadership. > I don't think

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 7:24:16 AM MST Matthew Miller wrote: > We have a big company _investment_, but I don't think it's a divide. > That's the one I live in. This is clearly not the case, though I understand why, as the FPL, you would want to say such a thing. -- John M. Harris, Jr.

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 02:09:10PM -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > > Have the same opportunity to participate in leadership. > Only two of the council seats are elected. The rest are appointed, and > some of those appointed only by specific Red Hat employees. > > Thus, I don't think it's exactly the

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 09:24 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > Have the same opportunity to participate in leadership. Only two of the council seats are elected. The rest are appointed, and some of those appointed only by specific Red Hat employees. Thus, I don't think it's exactly the same

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:42:38PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > One of the things I love about Fedora is that we don't have a big company- > > vs-community divide. > Huh? In what parallel universe do you live? We have a big company _investment_, but I don't think it's a divide. That's the one I

Re: Modularity and all the things

Matthew Miller wrote: > One of the things I love about Fedora is that we don't have a big company- > vs-community divide. Huh? In what parallel universe do you live? Modularity is just yet another example that clearly shows this divide. Just look at how Red Hat's desktop environment choice

Re: Modularity and all the things

Matthew Miller wrote: > There are certainly many examples of awesome great stuff that's been > created in Fedora without the investment of Red Hat (or anyone's) full > time employees. The zchunk metadata feature is a recent example. The > Stewardship SIG is another one. This is good stuff, and I'm

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 03:02:13PM -0500, Alex Scheel wrote: > From my organization at least, we have PM and management buy-in to > continue contributing so long as we don't have a long-term solution > that somebody else manages for us. So far, ursine packages have been > our solution and we've

Re: Modularity and all the things

- Original Message - > From: "Matthew Miller" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 1:16:22 PM > Subject: Re: Modularity and all the things > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:28:02PM +0100, Fabio Vale

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:28:02PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > That's all well and good, but you seem to be forgetting that people > are actually getting *paid* to work on modularity for fedora. > Any proposal for an alternative, which apparently needs to arrive at > least at MVP /

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wednesday, November 6, 2019 8:48:15 PM MST Kevin Kofler wrote: > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > What you call unfair, I call open source winning in the industry. > > Does it create an imbalance between funded vs. unfunded work? Yes. > > That is the reality of the software landscape today though, and

Re: Modularity and all the things

Randy Barlow wrote: > Nix might be the only solution that avoids this since it has the most > advanced form of parallel installability. I've not used Nix before, but > it sounds pretty cool. Unfortunately, Nix uses a completely non-standard (non-FHS) file system layout, essentially the Windows

Re: Modularity and all the things

Josh Boyer wrote: > What you call unfair, I call open source winning in the industry. > Does it create an imbalance between funded vs. unfunded work? Yes. > That is the reality of the software landscape today though, and I > think it's a net good thing even if it is somewhat departed from what >

Re: Modularity and all the things

Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote: > On 11/5/19 7:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> "name mangling": Why is this a problem? First of all, it is not mangling, >> it is suffixing. The original name is retained unchanged and nothing is >> prepended to it, only appended. And, e.g., Qt 3, 4, and 5 are all

Re: Modularity and all the things

Randy Barlow wrote: > On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 01:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> The big difference is that Gentoo is source-based, whereas Fedora is >> binary-based. So where Gentoo needs to ship only one ebuild (the >> equivalent of a specfile) for foo-1.2.3 that the user can then >> compile

Re: Modularity and all the things

On 11/5/19 7:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: "name mangling": Why is this a problem? First of all, it is not mangling, it is suffixing. The original name is retained unchanged and nothing is prepended to it, only appended. And, e.g., Qt 3, 4, and 5 are all different packages, so why should they have

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 00:20 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > This only works to a limited degree in Gentoo, and even then, if you > want a stable system, you can't really install different versions of > packages as X version of Y package will break package Z, generally > not in the ebuild either.

Re: Modularity and all the things

Randy Barlow wrote: > *Kofler - sorry for misspelling your name Kevin. Oh, I'm used to that. :-) Even in Vienna, where I live and where the name is relatively common, it keeps getting misspelled. (For the record, the name is originally from the Tyrol area. My father was from Alto Adige / South

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 4:35 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:15 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:08:23PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > I think I mentioned that it would be possible, as OpenPKG actually > > > worked this way. > > > > > > The

Re: Modularity and all the things

Dne 06. 11. 19 v 12:17 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > Dne 06. 11. 19 v 5:21 Randy Barlow napsal(a): >> On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 21:17 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: >>> This feature of "slotting" multiple EVRs of the same name actually >>> already exists in RPM. DNF currently restricts this to packages that >>>

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:22 PM Randy Barlow wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 21:17 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > This feature of "slotting" multiple EVRs of the same name actually > > already exists in RPM. DNF currently restricts this to packages that > > contain one of the following provides: >

Re: Modularity and all the things

Dne 06. 11. 19 v 5:21 Randy Barlow napsal(a): > On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 21:17 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: >> This feature of "slotting" multiple EVRs of the same name actually >> already exists in RPM. DNF currently restricts this to packages that >> contain one of the following provides: >> *

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 2:31:56 PM MST Randy Barlow wrote: > This means that Gentoo has 15 years of experience with providing > multiple versions of software streams to their users. As I said in my > last e-mail, it's the analogous "you can learn from the XSS > vulnerabilities that Firefox

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tuesday, November 5, 2019 6:42:43 PM MST Randy Barlow wrote: > On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 01:24 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Actually, it could also mean that Gentoo users are just in a habit of > > not complaining, no matter what. :-) After all, those are the same > > users who find it perfectly

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 21:17 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > This feature of "slotting" multiple EVRs of the same name actually > already exists in RPM. DNF currently restricts this to packages that > contain one of the following provides: > * installonlypkg(kernel) > * installonlypkg(kernel-module) > *

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 08:40:05PM -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > Matthew, my door is still open to talk. Thanks. I think that would be a good idea. I replied to your private email. Like I said before, I was at a conference last week, and I am on vacation this week, and I have some family matters

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 9:08 PM Randy Barlow wrote: > > > langdon wrote: > > > > * compat-libs (or compat lib style): not discoverable, name > > > > mangling > > > > Randy Barlow replied: > > > Yeah I don't love this either. > > > > I don't understand why people dislike compatibility libraries so

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 01:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > The big difference is that Gentoo is source-based, whereas Fedora is > binary-based. So where Gentoo needs to ship only one ebuild (the > equivalent of a specfile) for foo-1.2.3 that the user can then > compile against different choices of

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 19:13 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > For packagers who want to put the same spec file in all branches > today (I think Kevin Koffler often likes to do this) *Kofler - sorry for misspelling your name Kevin. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, 2019-11-06 at 01:24 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Actually, it could also mean that Gentoo users are just in a habit of > not complaining, no matter what. :-) After all, those are the same > users who find it perfectly fine that installing the kernel or > LibreOffice takes days (at least in

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 19:00 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Randy, I think you are misinterpreting Matthew’s statements here. > You’re attributing malice and dismissiveness where “text is a poor > communication medium” is a valid answer. Hi Stephen, Text is a poor communication medium. I've

Re: Modularity and all the things

Randy Barlow wrote: > There's a second reason it's relevant to mention their 15 year track > record: if they've been doing it 15 years, and during that time there > haven't been significant complaints (there haven't), this indicates > that their solution has a good chance of working well.

Re: Modularity and all the things

Randy Barlow wrote: > I haven't used Nix before, so I can't comment on that one, but in what > way would Gentoo's solution require a substantial user experience > change? When Gentoo added it, the only user experience change for me > was when I wanted to pick a non-default slot (or as we call it,

Re: Modularity and all the things

Hi Adam! On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 15:24 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > This has a few consequences I can think of. For a start it means the > actual problem we're currently having with our current module streams > wouldn't necessarily be solved by your system - we could've run into > exactly the

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:37 PM Randy Barlow wrote: > On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 14:14 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > Well, exactly. This is what I meant with my short "who is going to do > > that work?" comment. Gentoo's solution is not a drop-in thing for > > Fedora and would require changes to

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 14:14 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > Well, exactly. This is what I meant with my short "who is going to do > that work?" comment. Gentoo's solution is not a drop-in thing for > Fedora and would require changes to RPM, DNF, and the *significant* > work of figuring out what all

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 17:55 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > To avoid the word "slot", what I'm saying is why not just add a > "Stream" field to the RPM spec file (so, instead of NEVR, it's NESVR), > and provide a way for users to specify which streams they want to > follow? So, a couple of thoughts

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:57 PM Randy Barlow > > We (Stephen Gallagher and I) discussed me writing a blog post to > > revisit > > these past questions when Zbigniew raised the question the other > > day. > > However, I haven't written it yet. > > +1 > > Suggestion: could it be done as a page in

Re: Modularity and all the things

Thanks for writing this post Langdon! On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 12:55 -0500, langdon wrote: > * The two most promising candidates, Gentoo's slots (etc) and nix > both > require a substantial user experience change both as a command line > person and in how / where things land in the OS. We believe

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 14:57 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > Yeah, the reason OpenPKG was able to do this is because their flavor > of RPM had specific enhancements for it: > * Macros used in the spec had their definitions embedded into the > SRPM > * Generated package names and provides were

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, 2019-11-05 at 12:11 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > But, I still am having a hard time seeing the thing I quoted as a > respectful > approach. I avoided paraphrasing before, but I'm going to now, not to > caricature what Randy said but to clarify how it sounds to me and > what I'm >

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:15 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:08:23PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > I think I mentioned that it would be possible, as OpenPKG actually > > worked this way. > > > > The key for this would be improving the user-experience with > > interacting

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 02:14:29PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > If someone were to come by and say "I don't understand why you're doing all > this, when it's been solved by AppImage since 2004", I'd say the same thing > I'm telling Randy: you're welcome to work on that, but it's rude to tell the

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 2:15 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:08:23PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > I think I mentioned that it would be possible, as OpenPKG actually > > worked this way. > > > > The key for this would be improving the user-experience with > > interacting

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:08:23PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > I think I mentioned that it would be possible, as OpenPKG actually > worked this way. > > The key for this would be improving the user-experience with > interacting with source RPMs and spec files with DNF. We've optimized > *heavily*

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 12:58 PM Jeremy Cline wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 12:11:56PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 04:34:55PM +, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > > I'd just like to say that I have found this thread very demoralizing. I > > > think Randy has valid

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 12:11:56PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 04:34:55PM +, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > I'd just like to say that I have found this thread very demoralizing. I > > think Randy has valid points and has brought them up far more > > respectfully than I

Re: Modularity and all the things

On 10/25/19 10:15 AM, Randy Barlow wrote: On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 09:43 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: That is true, but the wording used also implied that this design has not been considered. The question of whether other designs have been considered has been raised many times over the years,

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 04:34:55PM +, Jeremy Cline wrote: > I'd just like to say that I have found this thread very demoralizing. I > think Randy has valid points and has brought them up far more > respectfully than I could and I feel like it's being dismissed as > trolling. I think this has a

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 08:40:45PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 06:10:33PM -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > > Consider the message that comments like this one and your last post > > send. I took the time to thoughtfully put together a set of ideas that > > can solve our

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 20:40 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > I actually quoted less than the entire message before because I felt > like the rest of it was even more inflammatory and trolling and I > didn't want to escalate. Accusing someone of trolling is not consistent with the actions of a

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:14:30AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > It would be useful for that contributor to be able to say "I build these > > packages so I can ship the thing I'm invested in, but... user and other > > contributors, beware". > > > > Now, solving that isn't in the requirements

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 06:10:33PM -0500, Randy Barlow wrote: > Consider the message that comments like this one and your last post > send. I took the time to thoughtfully put together a set of ideas that > can solve our problems in an easier and less controversial way by > learning lessons from

Re: Modularity and all the things

Matthew Miller wrote: > Of course, this seems irrelevant to Fedora -- we're not on the hook to > Support anything with a capital S, and yet we often do make > community-based efforts to help with just about any softare. But there is > a related problem: sometimes, in order to package up some

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 14:20 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > It would be useful for that contributor to be able to say "I build > these > packages so I can ship the thing I'm invested in, but... user and > other > contributors, beware". > Now, solving that isn't in the requirements modularity, but

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Mon, 2019-11-04 at 14:12 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > That said, it's hard to read "I see it as a solved problem and I > don't > understand why we are trying to solve it again" as ... helpful. > Consider the message that comments like this one and your last post send. I took the time to

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:07:10AM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > * Do we want to support "buildroot-only" packages? This isn't a specific goal. My understanding is that this is useful to RHEL, where Red Hat wants to ship supported software that needs software that they can't support to build. For

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:07:10AM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > How do the proposals I've mentioned not fulfill the goals? > > Are you proposing to _do_ those things, or proposing that someone else > > oughta? > I agree with Lukas that this is unfair. As we talked on the Flock, > that means

Re: Modularity and all the things

Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > What do you mean by "disallowing" default streams? Do you mean > removing them from Fedora? 1. Preventing the creation of new default streams. Use the non-modular branches instead. AND THEN 2. Retiring all existing default streams, merging them back into the

Re: Modularity and all the things

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > The ideal behavior would be for there to be UX that lets users know > that if they enable one of these streams, it's > unsupported/unsupportable (such as if they tried to use a > stripped-down version of a build tool). The module streams have a > "description" field that

Re: Modularity and all the things

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > By all means, if there are user experience problems, highlight those. Just > don't draw the conclusion that the whole system is unsalvageable. Let the > team that's working on it figure out if there's a way to fix the UX or if > it truly does mean that a structural flaw

Re: Modularity and all the things

Dne 24. 10. 19 v 14:09 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:45 AM Lukas Ruzicka > wrote: > > > > Are you proposing to _do_ those things, or proposing that > someone else > oughta? > > > This is an unfair statement! >

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:43 AM Petr Šabata wrote: > I do believe we all intend the best, even if we sometimes disagree. We > currently don’t have any other proposal that would fulfill the vision > of our Objective and the needs of our users. The input here helps us > re-focus on the most acute

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 09:43 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > That is true, but the wording used also implied that this design has > not been > considered. The question of whether other designs have been considered has been raised many times over the years, and I've not seen it claimed that yes,

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:29:23PM +0200, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > I want to jump in on one part of this ... > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM Igor Gnatenko < > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > > FXX: fish 3.x is non-modular, stream 4.x exists > > FXX+1: fish 4.x is

Re: Modularity and all the things

I want to jump in on one part of this ... On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > FXX: fish 3.x is non-modular, stream 4.x exists > FXX+1: fish 4.x is non-modular, stream 3.x exists > > * If user wants to stay on 3.x, he needs to enable

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:43 PM Petr Šabata wrote: > While these issues are being resolved, we are considering temporarily > disallowing default streams in Fedora. I don’t want to abandon the > idea completely, as doing so reduces the motivation to actually build > modules and reap the benefits

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:06:00AM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 08:09 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > There's a very large difference between feedback like "I think the > > user experience is suboptimal here, for this reason" and "I don't > > like the entire design, you

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 08:09 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > There's a very large difference between feedback like "I think the > user experience is suboptimal here, for this reason" and "I don't > like the entire design, you should scrap it and start over". > > In the first case, it's possible

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 12:58 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > Are you proposing to _do_ those things, or proposing that someone > else > oughta? This feels like an attempt to suggest that I have made a demand when I have not. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I suggest avoiding

Re: Modularity and all the things

*There's a very large difference between feedback like "I think the user experience is suboptimal here, for this reason" and "I don't like the entire design, you should scrap it and start over".* Well, I can agree with that. > > In the first case, it's possible to incorporate that into an

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 08:10, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:45 AM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: >> >> >> >>> Are you proposing to _do_ those things, or proposing that someone else >>> oughta? >> >> >> This is an unfair statement! >> >> I thought Fedora is a community of

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 06:55, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > IMHO: > > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > * Do we want to support "buildroot-only" packages? > > No, because this contradicts both the transparency expected from a > community-developed project and the self-hosting expectations. > I am in agreement

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:45 AM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > > > Are you proposing to _do_ those things, or proposing that someone else >> oughta? >> > > This is an unfair statement! > > I thought Fedora is a community of people. In the community, we have > programmers, visionaries, idealists,

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:56 AM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > IMHO: > > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > * Do we want to support "buildroot-only" packages? > > No, because this contradicts both the transparency expected from a > community-developed project and the self-hosting expectations. > I think there's

Re: Modularity and all the things

Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:52 PM Petr Šabata wrote: >> While these issues are being resolved, we are considering temporarily >> disallowing default streams in Fedora. I don’t want to abandon the >> idea completely, as doing so reduces the motivation to actually build >>

Re: Modularity and all the things

IMHO: Igor Gnatenko wrote: > * Do we want to support "buildroot-only" packages? No, because this contradicts both the transparency expected from a community-developed project and the self-hosting expectations. > * Do we want to build streams against all combinations (aka >

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > This basically makes modularity not useful for many things: > > 1. People will have to have different workflows between "default" > version (standard workflow, as we have today) and "modular" version. >

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:07 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:44:06PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 14:41 +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: > > > We currently don’t have any other proposal that would fulfill the vision > > > of our Objective and the needs of

Re: Modularity and all the things

Are you proposing to _do_ those things, or proposing that someone else > oughta? > This is an unfair statement! I thought Fedora is a community of people. In the community, we have programmers, visionaries, idealists, testers, graphics ... and we also have users, that only know if they like or

Re: Modularity and all the things

Hey Petr, First of all, thanks for writing this up, much appreciated. On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 2:52 PM Petr Šabata wrote: > > Starting a new thread since the old one is hard to navigate at this point. > > Modularity is a distribution-level change and requires some mindset > shift from packagers

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:44:06PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 14:41 +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: > > We currently don’t have any other proposal that would fulfill the vision > > of our Objective and the needs of our users. > How do the proposals I've mentioned not fulfill the

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 14:41 +0200, Petr Šabata wrote: > We > currently don’t have any other proposal that would fulfill the vision > of our Objective and the needs of our users. How do the proposals I've mentioned not fulfill the goals? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 08:43, Petr Šabata wrote: > > I do believe we all intend the best, even if we sometimes disagree. We > currently don’t have any other proposal that would fulfill the vision > of our Objective and the needs of our users. The input here helps us > re-focus on the most acute

Modularity and all the things

Starting a new thread since the old one is hard to navigate at this point. Modularity is a distribution-level change and requires some mindset shift from packagers and users alike. I understand the concerns some people have, feeling it’s something new and half-baked that is being forced on them.