On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 7:24 AM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> 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 Fedora
> *users*.
Sorry, the "no disadvantage" part is just not true:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
* introduce upgrade path issues when upgrading to a newer Fedora,
This has been acknowledged as a bug and is on its way to being fixed.
* make it harder to replace packages with local versions (because the
module normally takes precedence over non-modular versions of the same packages),
This is a valid concern and it is one we are investigating a solution
for right now. One possible answer: if the RPM location is specified
directly (URL or filesystem location) assume that the user wants to
override the modular package.
* may introduce dependency version conflicts due to versioned
dependencies on other modules (whereas non-modular packages currently cannot depend on
non-default modules, and it should really stay that way), and those are just the 3 obvious
issues.
We just adopted the policy that a default module stream may not depend
on any non-default module streams. As long as this is properly
enforced, this issue is addressed already.
The design fails to deliver on its promise of delivering the exact
same user
experience.
This is incorrect. The *implementation* is currently failing to
deliver the same user experience.