> "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes:
MH> You realize that once it is maintained by the group, nobody else is
MH> going to take it?
When the stewardship SIG maintains a package, it should be for the sole
purpose of keeping it around just long enough to avoid serious
disruption that would be caused
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 27. 03. 19 20:53, Fabio Valentini wrote:> On the other side, I don't think
> that the problem of orphaned
> > "important" packages will go away, and this group can offer
> > maintenance until a "proper" new maintainer for those packages
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:46 AM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
>
> I propose to change the scope of the SIG a bit.
>
> Maintaining packages could be one of the activities of the SIG, but its
> primary purpose should be to deal with this topic in general.
>
> Watch for orphans, develop orphaning and
On 27. 03. 19 20:53, Fabio Valentini wrote:> On the other side, I don't think
that the problem of orphaned
"important" packages will go away, and this group can offer
maintenance until a "proper" new maintainer for those packages is
found.
You realize that once it is maintained by the group,
I propose to change the scope of the SIG a bit.
Maintaining packages could be one of the activities of the SIG, but its
primary purpose should be to deal with this topic in general.
Watch for orphans, develop orphaning and retirement workflows, develop a
strategy how to manage those cases, how
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:13 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On 2/15/19 5:16 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:14 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>
> >> This group would be for maintaining packages that are modularized in a
> >> non-module context so that it's actually usable by the
On 2/15/19 5:16 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:14 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> This group would be for maintaining packages that are modularized in a
>> non-module context so that it's actually usable by the broader
>> ecosystem. Modules are not usable for non-module
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 13. 02. 19 15:32, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Fabio Valentini:
> >>
> >>> In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> >>> "module-only" packages are
On 15. 02. 19 14:14, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:46 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
* Fabio Valentini:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
* Fabio Valentini:
In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
"module-only" packages are orphaned (and
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:14 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:46 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > * Fabio Valentini:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> * Fabio Valentini:
> > >>
> > >> > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:46 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Fabio Valentini:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Fabio Valentini:
> >>
> >> > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> >> > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will
* Fabio Valentini:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Fabio Valentini:
>>
>> > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
>> > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
>> > and nobody stepped up to fix this issue -
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:32 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> On 13/02/2019 12:58, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:51 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13/02/2019 09:48, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> On 13/02/2019 09:11,
On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 at 15:59, Ron Yorston wrote:
[...]
> Why would a maintainer drop support for the regular package after
> they've copied it into a module (or modules)? If, as Neal says,
> "module-only" packages can't be used as build dependencies for
> regular packages their package
> Fedora Legacy?
Please don't call the current way of doing things legacy until
modularity shows some maturity. For now it smells like
time-to-market-driven protoduction [1] that is still missing crucial
core functionality to work end-to-end.
Dridi
[1] prototype deployed to production
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 03:32:55PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > * Fabio Valentini:
> >
> > > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> > > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
> >
On 13. 02. 19 15:32, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
* Fabio Valentini:
In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
"module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
and nobody stepped up to fix this issue -
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>* Ron Yorston [13/02/2019 08:45] :
>> If so, why would they do that? Why would they *not* want their package
>> to be available as a regular package? It seems counterproductive for
>> them to downgrade their package to this second-class status.
>
>The goal, IIUC (and I'm
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Fabio Valentini:
>
> > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
> > and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
> >
* Fabio Valentini:
> In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
> and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
> packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
> yet.
On 13/02/2019 12:58, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:51 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
On 13/02/2019 09:48, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
I don't
* Fabio Valentini [13/02/2019 13:58] :
>
> It's fine for now, since the ant hasn't been retired from the master
> branch - yet.
> Once that happens, it will not be available from the regular repos,
> but only from the modular repos.
The issue here is that, if we have someone who can maintain ant,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:51 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> On 13/02/2019 09:48, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
> >>>
> I don't think that second
On 13/02/2019 09:48, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
I don't think that second consequence is entirely true.
As I understand the the default module stream remains
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think that second consequence is entirely true.
> >>
> >> As I understand the the default module stream remains available
> >> in
On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
I don't think that second consequence is entirely true.
As I understand the the default module stream remains available
in the main repo and hence would be installable with things that
don't understand
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> On 13/02/2019 08:05, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:58 AM Ron Yorston wrote:
> >
> >> What is a "module-only" package?
> >
> > These are packages that move from the main Fedora distribution into
> > the addon
On 13/02/2019 08:05, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:58 AM Ron Yorston wrote:
What is a "module-only" package?
These are packages that move from the main Fedora distribution into
the addon "fedora-modular" repo that is enabled by default on Fedora
systems.
There are a couple
* Ron Yorston [13/02/2019 08:45] :
>
> What causes a package to move? I guess it doesn't just happen
> spontaneously, so presumably it's a choice the maintainer makes.
It isn't really a move per se. A regular package can be copied into
a module. If the package is then orphaned/retired, it
Neal Gompa wrote:
>Ron Yorston wrote:
>> What is a "module-only" package?
>
>These are packages that move from the main Fedora distribution into
>the addon "fedora-modular" repo that is enabled by default on Fedora
>systems.
What causes a package to move? I guess it doesn't just happen
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:58 AM Ron Yorston wrote:
>
> Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> >"module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
> >and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
> >packages. I
Fabio Valentini wrote:
>In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
>"module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
>and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
>packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
>yet.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:15 PM Fabio Valentini
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:09 PM Adam Samalik wrote:
> >
> > The Modularity Team works on enabling default modules to be present in
> the traditional buildroot. The work is tracked here:
>
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:09 PM Adam Samalik wrote:
>
> The Modularity Team works on enabling default modules to be present in the
> traditional buildroot. The work is tracked here:
> https://tree.taiga.io/project/modularity-wg/epic/12
>
> We would love to contributions towards that. I'm
The Modularity Team works on enabling default modules to be present in the
traditional buildroot. The work is tracked here:
https://tree.taiga.io/project/modularity-wg/epic/12
We would love to contributions towards that. I'm willing to mentor anyone
interested regarding Modularity. However, we
35 matches
Mail list logo
