On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 8:48 AM Stephen John Smoogen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 13 May 2022 at 08:29, Nux <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks, yes, it does sound weird and will double check for any pebkac >> issues, too. >> >> Oracle EL is definitely on the list, will check it, as well. >> >> I wish they stuck to software collections, really. > > > Both solutions have had significant 'user' and 'developer' pushback. Many > groups (developers, users, customers, IT groups,etc) complained about how bad > SCL's were and asked for changes that were then implemented into modularity. > I find it sort of like a 'Beware of what you complain about, someone may try > to fix it.' >
With an EL9 lens (as that's where most of my focus is these days), the only real complaint I have about modules these days is that the official module build infrastructure requires too much information and access to build modules on top of modules. For work, we use an Open Build Service instance for our build system and it supports enabling modules per project/package build without having to require interacting with the target distribution's Koji instance (as MBS does). If there was something I'd wave a wand about, it'd be that EPEL would be able to build on top of RHEL modules properly[1] and not require people to figure out build orders by default[2]. [1]: https://pagure.io/fm-orchestrator/issue/1653 [2]: https://pagure.io/fm-orchestrator/issue/1241 -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
