On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:56 AM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote: > > IMHO: > > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > * Do we want to support "buildroot-only" packages? > > No, because this contradicts both the transparency expected from a > community-developed project and the self-hosting expectations. >
I think there's some confusion about what a "buildroot-only" module stream is meant to be (at least aspirationally; until Ursa Major we didn't have the technical implementation for this). What a "buildroot-only" module should be is a module stream that we discourage from use at runtime. This does *not* preclude it from being shipped in the public repositories. Prior to Ursa Major, we didn't have any way to get these streams into the non-modular buildroot, so they effectively became modular-dependency-only streams. With recent changes to support Ursa Major, this problem would go away. The ideal behavior would be for there to be UX that lets users know that if they enable one of these streams, it's unsupported/unsupportable (such as if they tried to use a stripped-down version of a build tool). The module streams have a "description" field that we should require to contain this information, as well as setting the "api" field to an empty list. I don't see any reason that we couldn't then ship these streams in the public repos, unless I'm forgetting something. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@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
