On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:56:38PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > How does it distinguish between comps groups and modules, how does it > resolve conflcits between the two? I think a designator makes sense > but I don't think that should be @
In my imagination, we'd supplant comps groups entirely, but fall back to any provided comps groups if they are available for backwards compatibility. We could create modules for every existing Fedora comps group, so the compatibility would be for end-user-created groups and third-party repos. I assume anaconda and compose tooling already needs to be module-aware in order to build/create a modular release — but I may be very wrong about that. Using another character is okay, but the hard thing is that there's not a lot of characters that make sense. It needs to be typable on most keyboards without contortions, and shouldn't need a shell escape. And I actually kind of like the conceptual idea that modules area like comps groups, but with added fancy features like separate streams. That's a story that's pretty easy to explain to people. -- Matthew Miller <mat...@fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
