On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 8:52 AM Martin Curlej <mcurlej(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi,
EOL and Obsoletes were planned as a feature of Modularity. The feature
should enable to set shorter/longer life cycles on Modules than the OS
release. The initial idea was to set this information in the disgit
metadata of a Module. As time went by the requirements have changed.
From my point of view right now it seems that this information should not
be a part of the module (disgit, repository metadata). It is prone to human
error when we leave this in the hands of a packager. So this would need a
review of Engineering to be reliable.
Next is that a lot of 3rd parties like to handle the EOL and Obsoletes of
packages/modules by other means, which makes this redundant. Also, as the
release cycle of Fedora is so fast, I am not sure this is a necessary
feature at all
I spoke to people in the community and I got mixed information/opinions,
so I want to open a discussion about this feature. So WDYT? Is this
necessary for Fedora? If yes, how should we handle this?
At the end of the day for Fedora, packagers are maintaining the modules, so
they should be able to mark a module as EOL when they feel like they don't
want it in the distribution anymore. As for module obsoletes, this is
necessary for supporting transitions and upgrades, which broke *two* Fedora
release upgrades because there was no way to handle this.
Additionally, with my third-party packager hat on, I need these to be
declarable in the module metadata so that it's easy to convey in a
machine-enforceable way when something is maintained/supported or not. I
don't know which third-parties you've been talking to, but as an actual
third-party packager who does work for an ISV that supports Fedora and
RHEL/CentOS for a product, I don't know where else I would put it.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!