[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path
From:       Miro_Hrončok <mhroncok () redhat ! com>
Date:       2019-11-15 15:24:55
Message-ID: 2bbbdb05-0ad9-033c-4f0b-347cfa5b6cdf () redhat ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 15. 11. 19 16:11, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2019-11-15, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 15. 11. 19 14:32, Petr Pisar wrote:
>>> On 2019-10-04, Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Wouldn't it be easier if the "default stream" would just behave like
>>>> a regular package?
>>>>
>>>> I can think of two solutions of that:
>>>>
>>>> 1. (drastic for modular maintainers)
>>>>
>>>> We keep miantaining the default versions of things as ursine packages.
>>>> We only modularize alternate versions.
>>>>
>>> Big con:
>>>
>>> That effectively bans modules with multiple dependencies where at least
>>> one is a default version.
>>>
>>> Example: I have Perl 5.26 as a default version. I have Perl 5.30 as an
>>> laternative version. Now I want to package Bugzilla that's written in
>>> Perl. How do you package Bugzilla so that it works with Perl 5.26 as
>>> well as with Perl 5.30?
>>
>> I don't understand why would the user care about the Perl version when
>> they want Bugzilla. How is Bugzilla different form e.g. Slic3r (app
>> that happens to be written in Perl)? Do we want to modularize all such
>> apps to solve the "no parallel instability" feature?
>>
> I don't know. Ask the user why he needs a different Perl version than
> the default one.  Maybe he has some other applications that work only
> with that particular version.

What I was implying is that I don't understand why the user of Buzgilla wants 
different Perl version to run it. I was not implying that users don't want 
various Perl versions generally.

> If you believe that users do  not care about a version of software they
> use, then we can drop out modularity, and all Fedora releases and
> deliver only Rawhide. Or we can stop integrating new versions of
> software and deliver Fedora 32 and nothing else forever.

I believe that the purpose of a distribution is to cerate and integrated 
environment, where we simply make sure that Bugzilla works and runs on a Perl 
version we support. And we move forward and integrate with newer Perl versions.

Note that I don't necessarily mean that the use case doesn't exist, I just say I 
don't really get it. And why is Bugzilla any different that all other Perl 
applications.

Either the strategy should be:

"We offer alternate Perl versions for containers etc. they conflict with the 
default Perl version and with the non-modular apps. That is known and accepted."

Or the strategy should be:

"We build all our Perl applications for all our Perl versions, so users who 
choose their Perl stream can still keep their applications from the distribution."

I fail to see what are we trying to achieve here exactly.
It was said several times that parallel instability is a non-goal of Modularity 
and that means certain apps won't install if certain streams are selected. Or 
did I get that wrong?

>>> If each of the Perls is a stream of a module, you will put Bugzilla into
>>> a module and let it depend on any of the Perls. User can install any of
>>> the Perls and Bugzilla.
>>>
>>> With your proposal Bugzilla packager would have to package Bugzilla
>>> twice: as a normal package for default Perl 5.26 and as a module for Perl
>>> 5.30. Then a user would have hard time to select the right combinations of
>>> Perl and Bugzilla. It would double fork work pacakgers and and make
>>> the system more dificult for users.
>>
>> With my proposal, Bugzilla packager would package Bugzilla in
>> non-modular Fedora unless they also want to package it as a module. If
>> I see correctly, this is exactly the case today.
>>
> And do you know the packager does not want to pacakge Bugzilla as
> a module? Because in current Fedora without default streams in build
> root he had to package it and maintain it twice.

No, I don't. But I know there are packagers of applications who don't want to do 
that. And we should make a distro-scale decision whether we want the whole 
distro to work this way, or whether we only allow this - and those who choose to 
modularize will do so in addition to the non-modular default packages, not instead.

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@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

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]