t be easier to just deliver non-modular packages for default
> > versions.
> >
> > Maybe it would be helpful to try to reformulate the question:
> >
> >
> > **What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
> > packages?**
>
> As Pet
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 7:24 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > As Petr Pisar noted earlier, default streams are designed to deliver the
> > same user experience as ursine packages, therefore there is no *direct*
> > advantage or disadvantage of them over ursine packages, for
Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> As Petr Pisar noted earlier, default streams are designed to deliver the
> same user experience as ursine packages, therefore there is no *direct*
> advantage or disadvantage of them over ursine packages, for Fedora
> *users*.
Sorry, the "no disadvantage" part is just
o try to reformulate the question:
>
>
> **What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
> packages?**
As Petr Pisar noted earlier, default streams are designed to deliver the same
user experience as ursine packages, therefore there is no *direct* advantage
or disadvantage of
John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> Python 2 and Python 3 are inherently incompatible, and many programs WILL
> NOT be migrated to Python 3. In fact, we're simply dropping many packages,
> some were even explicitly denied an exception, that refused to "upgrade"
> to Python 3.
Indeed. As much as I agree
Joe Orton wrote:
> So it's clear to me that you see that packagers chosing default streams
> over non-modular packages impose external costs on the rest of the
> distro (packagers and/or users?) somehow. This thread was supposed to
> focus on benefits, and these vague claims about costs and
On Friday, November 15, 2019 1:55:44 PM MST Alex Scheel wrote:
> I do agree that we will need to migrate to JDK 11, but that'll take
> time. Perhaps we need Miro's fine management skills and strict policy
> enforcement to get us there a la python2->python3 migration.
That's not the same, at all.
- Original Message -
> From: "Fabio Valentini"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 10:58:04 AM
> Subject: Re: What are the benefits of default modular streams over
> non-modular packages?
>
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 3:31 PM Joe Orton wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:44:52PM +0100, Miro Hroncok wrote:
> > Where is the end-user benefit with the modular default stream? I don't see
> > it either, sorry.
Let me offer a second opinion (coming from some first-hand experience) here:
>
elated to my argument,
> which I could summarize as:
>
> a) multiple module streams have a benefit to users, and
> b) default streams have a benefit to package owners.
Hi Joe,
this thread is looking for details about a very specific question:
What are the benefits of default modular
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 3:38 PM Joe Orton wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:44:52PM +0100, Miro Hroncok wrote:
> > Where is the end-user benefit with the modular default stream? I don't see
> > it either, sorry.
>
> It's not clear to me how those examples are related to my argument,
> which I
On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 12:44:52PM +0100, Miro Hroncok wrote:
> Where is the end-user benefit with the modular default stream? I don't see
> it either, sorry.
It's not clear to me how those examples are related to my argument,
which I could summarize as:
a) multiple module streams have a
as non-modular packages, yet it was
not said if it wouldn't be easier to just deliver non-modular packages
for default versions.
Maybe it would be helpful to try to reformulate the question:
**What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
packages?**
[...]
Considering we have 6
On Friday, November 15, 2019 6:03:40 AM MST Petr Pisar wrote:
> You answered yourself: "default modular streams are planned to deliver
> the exact same experience as non-modular packages." If they provide the
> same experience, they provide the same set of benefits. Hence there
> cannot be any
ackages, yet it was
> not said if it wouldn't be easier to just deliver non-modular packages
> for default versions.
>
> Maybe it would be helpful to try to reformulate the question:
>
> **What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
> packages?**
[...]
> Consideri
On 15. 11. 19 12:14, Joe Orton wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 04:56:28PM +0100, Miro Hroncok wrote:
I'll admit that I personally don't see any benefits, but of course that
doesn't mean that they don't exist or that it's not worth having this
discussion.
Considering we have 6 default modular
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 04:56:28PM +0100, Miro Hroncok wrote:
> I'll admit that I personally don't see any benefits, but of course that
> doesn't mean that they don't exist or that it's not worth having this
> discussion.
>
> Considering we have 6 default modular streams, let me acknowledge that
On 15. 11. 19 2:56, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 11/14/19 7:56 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
**What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular packages?**
I think Adam Williamson tried to answer that in a message in the thread "Re:
Modularity and the system-upgrade path" (
On 11/14/19 7:56 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
**What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular
packages?**
I think Adam Williamson tried to answer that in a message in the thread
"Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path" (link below) when he wrote:
"if
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 11:39 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> I thing the canonical source of this data is:
>
> https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-module-defaults/tree/master
>
> If I understand the format correctly, the yamls that have the stream key have
> default.
For the record, you are correct. This
are planned to deliver the
exact same experience as non-modular packages, yet it was not said if it
wouldn't be easier to just deliver non-modular packages for default versions.
Maybe it would be helpful to try to reformulate the question:
**What are the benefits of default modular streams over non
modular streams are planned to deliver the
> exact same experience as non-modular packages, yet it was not said if it
> wouldn't be easier to just deliver non-modular packages for default versions.
>
> Maybe it would be helpful to try to reformulate the question:
>
>
> **What
if it
wouldn't be easier to just deliver non-modular packages for default versions.
Maybe it would be helpful to try to reformulate the question:
**What are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular packages?**
I'll admit that I personally don't see any benefits, but of course
23 matches
Mail list logo
