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

List:       fedora-devel-list
Subject:    Re: Fedora 31: dnf upgrade suddenly enables modular streams for protobuf
From:       drago01 <drago01 () gmail ! com>
Date:       2019-12-07 9:28:07
Message-ID: CAMqY-Ffenjn8ST4mDcgJc7hqS1=j=DWDQom9PT0g9PNCRRL3yg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


On Saturday, December 7, 2019, Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org>
wrote:

> On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 18:51 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > After reading this thread I think this is a more serious problem than
> just
> > this package. I had "assumed" modules were just normal, so I didn't
> > question them being installed.
>
> They are normal. You're not wrong. The problem is well understood at
> this point: a module was given a stream default - meaning it becomes
> the default source of packages it contains.


>
>  That module includes
> protobuf, meaning it takes over from the non-modular repo as the
> default source of protobuf.
>

This should not be possible, a module should not randomly overwrite normal
package, that basically means all the work done on the package
(maintenance, testing) is just worthless because some random module has the
same package.

We should really reconsider the whole "default module" concept - it is
inherently incompatible with the rest of the distribution. We can keep
adding hacks every time it breaks but that doesn't scale. The negatives far
outweighs the gains.

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<br><br>On Saturday, December 7, 2019, Adam Williamson &lt;<a \
href="mailto:adamwill@fedoraproject.org">adamwill@fedoraproject.org</a>&gt; \
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px \
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 18:51 -0600, Richard Shaw \
wrote:<br> &gt; After reading this thread I think this is a more serious problem than \
just<br> &gt; this package. I had &quot;assumed&quot; modules were just normal, so I \
didn&#39;t<br> &gt; question them being installed.<br>
<br>
They are normal. You&#39;re not wrong. The problem is well understood at<br>
this point: a module was given a stream default - meaning it becomes<br>
the default source of packages it contains.</blockquote><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">  That module \
includes<br> protobuf, meaning it takes over from the non-modular repo as the<br>
default source of protobuf.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This should not be possible, a module should not \
randomly overwrite normal package, that basically means all the work done on the \
package (maintenance, testing) is just worthless because some random module has the \
same package.  </div><div><br></div><div>We should really reconsider the whole \
&quot;default module&quot; concept - it is inherently incompatible with the rest of \
the distribution. We can keep adding hacks every time it breaks but that doesn&#39;t \
scale. The negatives far outweighs the gains.</div><div>  </div>


[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]

_______________________________________________
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]