[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:       "John M. Harris Jr" <johnmh () splentity ! com>
Date:       2019-11-15 15:25:24
Message-ID: 2748936.kmov4Pjrz5 () marvin ! jharris ! pw
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday, November 15, 2019 7:53:08 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote:
> Modularity can achieve it when both Perls are packaged as a module. I'm
> only showing why we need default stream if we want modules.

If that's the case, why not build a (separate) Modularity distro? If 
Modularity cannot work with non-modular packages, and that is not a bug with 
Modularity, it is fundamentally incompatible with Fedora as a traditional 
distribution.

> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm guessing that Perl from a module doesn't meet a Require on perl?
> 
> 
> It meets the RPM-level "Require on perl". But that's not sufficient
> because every Perl version is not binary compatible. You need to track
> against what Perl Bugzilla was built. That means you need to build Bugzilla
> twice and keep these two Bugzilla builds distinct so that DNF can install
> the right build depending on Perl user has already installed. Modularity
> supports it, but you need both Perl as a module.

That would depend on how the Perl packages are actually handled, which I 
honestly haven't checked, and so I will make no claims as to compatibility.

> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't believe that's the case. The packager would choose how they want
> > to  handle it, most likely just not bothering with modules. The user
> > would just `dnf install bugzilla`, and use the version that is packaged
> > as a non-modular package.
> >
> >
> 
> If packager does not build Bugzilla for the modular Perl, then of course
> the user has no choice. But talk about a case when the user and the
> package wants to have a choice.

It seems, based on what you've said, that Modules remove this choice. If 
somebody chooses for something in the dependency tree to be a module, it all 
has to be a module, otherwise it doesn't work. Please do correct me if I'm 
wrong.

-- 
John M. Harris, Jr.
Splentity

_______________________________________________
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]