On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 04:36:17PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> I have been worried about a negative feedback loop here on packagers.
> This is a new technology and packagers aren't usually people who care
> about EPEL. Having them to deal with multiple OS's they don't use
> makes it more likely they don't want to put stuff in modules in the
> first place. I would prefer to be looser on the uptake of modules to
> get people comfortable with them in Fedora first. I also don't expect
> a large demand for modules in EPIC.

Modules solve two problems for EPIC:

First, since each module has a lifecycle definition, they make it easy
to maintain packages for EPIC without the 10-year commitment (or,
indeed, any more commitment then the packager makes in Fedora). And
that works both ways: as a consumer, I can know up front what lifecycle
I can (at least nominally) expect from a given module stream.

Second, I *do* think there are a lot of cases where different EPIC
users will want different versions. The Django module we have in Fedora
now would be immediately useful.

I do also worry about the possible negative feedback loop. I suggest we
start _building_ for EL by default but not tagging into the repo. Make
_that_ opt-in.

> >>           Extra Packages Inter Community.
> > Extra Packages for Impassioned Community?
> > Extra Packages Included by Community?
> > Extra Packages Introduced by Community?
> > Extra Packages Including Community?
> > Extra Packages for Innnnnterprise Community? (Or "EPEC"?)
> Extra Packages for Introverted Communities

Extroverted Packages for Introverted Communities!

Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 

Reply via email to