On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:43 AM Petr Pisar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 08:26:32AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:52, Petr Pisar <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Case: RHEL delivers a non-modular P package. There is no S stream of > > > a M module. Can I add a new M module with a new S stream that will > contain > > > a modular P package? I guess it will be allowed. Can I make the stream > > > default? I guess that won't be allowed. > > > > > > > I would agree with your assessment. > > > Thank you for the prompt response. I have yet another peculiar corner case > of > this one, that I is actually very prominent for me: > > We have plenty of Perl packages in RHEL. Most of them are not modularized, > thus they are compatible only with Perl 5.26, a default perl:5.26 stream. > I feel there will be a demand for providing their modularized variants in > EPEL > so that users can use them even with non-default perl. > > All that can be implemented by adding a new module. This is not a problem. > The > problem is that the module will an second-class citizen compating to a > module > with net new package due to missing the default stream. The reasong for > banning the default is that the EPEL modular package would mask the > non-modular RHEL package. > > Let's I have a theoretcal way how to build that module so thet a context > for > perl:5.26 will be an empty, no RPM package. Then making the stream default > would not violate the no-replacement rule. > > If a user used perl:5.26, yum would install the non-modular package from > RHEL > because there won't by any modular package masking it. If a user enabled > a different perl stream, yum would install the modular package from EPEL. > > Would you accept this solution? > I just spent a few minutes trying to figure out if this is technically possible. I think it *might* be, but the more I think about it, the less I like it. I think we should approach EPEL with the principle of least surprise. I don't think any admin should ever get an EPEL package *by accident*. If they used `yum enable perl:5.24`, I don't think that should implicitly mean that they start getting EPEL packages. If they want to use EPEL content, they should have to enable an EPEL stream on purpose.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected]
