On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 4:50 AM Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > Dne 09. 11. 18 v 16:28 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a): > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 9:53 AM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote: > >> Raphael Groner wrote: > >> > >>> Kevin, > >>>> * that no package may ever be module-only, but > >>>> modules can only be used for non-default > >>>> versions. > >>> That statement doesn't make any sense for me. Can you explain, please? How > >>> should modules live without packages in background? We'd already discussed > >>> this in another thread. > >> I don't think you understood the sentence I wrote. > >> > >> The current state is that we can have: > >> main repo: no package foo, no package libfoo (but many other packages) > >> module foo-1: foo-1.8.10, libfoo-1.8.12 > >> module foo-2: foo-2.0.0, libfoo-2.0.1 > >> but the "main repo: no package foo, no package libfoo" part is what I am > >> objecting to, especially if libfoo is used by more packages than just foo. > >> > >> I want to require the main repo to contain some version of libfoo, and > >> other > >> packages (from the main repo or from modules other than foo) should be > >> required to use the version in the main repo and not in some non-default > >> module. > > This is literally the exact way things work today, except that instead > > of "the main repo", we treat it as "the main repo OR the default > > stream of the module". > > > > Nothing in the main repo is permitted to use anything that is not > > available in the main repo or a default module stream at runtime. Full > > stop. > > > > The case of Ursa Major is special: it's addressing the case where we > > may have some *build-time* requirements that are not in the default > > repo. > > > I might be missing something, but how do you want to enforce this ^^? > This sounds that although build succeeds, runtime might fail later, > because of missing dependencies. This might not happen for Go you used > as an example, because it is statically linked, but it must be the case > for other dynamically linked libraries. >
Well, it *should* be enforced in Bodhi with the dependency-check test (dist.rpmdeplint). It should see that the packages won't be installable and once we get gating turned back on, it will enforce that the package cannot go to stable. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
