On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > Le mercredi 24 juin 2020 à 11:56 +0200, Petr Pisar a écrit : > > I see. I focused on having the stream information on RPM level. Then the > > answer is no, the package name does not contain the information. > > > > My idea was that DNF could discriminate the same-name package using the > > ModularityLabel tag instead of relying on modulemd documents delivered in > > the repository metadata. > > One problem of having it a tag (which we do not even have in Fedora)
I believe having it in Fedora is only a matter of changing MBS configuration. > is that it requires rewriting dependency resolution logic at dnf level, DNF has a steadfast idea that an upgrade path is only based on a package name. Without changes in DNF, DNF will either switch a stream just because a package from a concurrent stream has a higher version, or will complain that it cannot upgrade to the lastest version. Neither of the options is a desired behavior. Thus I believe that changing DNF is inevitable. > and a Tag does not come with all the dependency manipulation verbs we > have evolved over the years for Provides and Requires. > ModularityLabel designates an affilation to a stream. That can be reduced to "Requires: module(name:stream)" or "Requires: module(name) = stream". I'm not agaist abusing Requires for that purpose. But it alone won't fix the issue with enforcing a presence of a stream I drafted above. -- Petr
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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
