On 2019-11-14, Miro HronĨok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
I've asked whether it wouldn't be in fact much easier to keep the default versions of our packages non-modular.
[...]
Arguments were made that default 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 are the benefits of default modular streams over non-modular packages?**
[...]
Considering we have 6 default modular streams, let me acknowledge that for the maintainers who decided to deliver default modular streams instead of non-modular packages, there clearly are some benefits. While some of us might not understand them, let's not say there are none. But even if there are clear benefits for the maintainers of those modules, I'm asking about the benefits for everybody else.
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 "benefits of default modular streams over non-modular packages". Q.E.D.
If you want a disuccion, then you should not have stripped all modularity features and than ask what are the benefits of modularity without modularity.
-- Petr