On 17. 10. 19 14:08, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:53 AM Miro Hrončok
<mhroncok(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> That was a representative example. I came up with it at 11pm after a
>> long day. Don't read too much into the specifics. The point was that
>> builds may require newer or older software than we have available in
>> the non-modular buildroot, but don't require them at runtime.
>
> Yes, they do. There are many ways to solve the problem, from compat packages
> trough various tag-magic to buildroot overrides in custom side tags. We have had
> this problem for years and we were able to deal with it quite well.
>
Please let's not confuse "we have figured out how to work around it by
making our packagers do a lot of tricky hacks" with "able to deal with
it quite well". This is a major issue for non-expert packagers. I
don't have statistics on how many people give up on a package because
of this issue, but I know *I* have done so (and I'd consider myself
more experienced than most people at packaging).
One of the (often un- or misinformed) major arguments people keep
using against Modularity is "it makes packaging harder!". This is one
place where it makes things *much* easier on the packagers. It's a
clear reduction in complexity.
The real problem here is: It makes things easier for packagers who opt-in to
modularity at a cost of making things harder for packagers who don't.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok