On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 3:15 PM Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:07:44PM -0600, Al Stone wrote:
-- And the one question I have to add on to Christopher's wonderful list: I have a package where upstream releases about once a month, and each new release must by definition be backwards compatible (acpica-tools, specifically). I can think of no scenario where a module provides value to me or end-users; in fact, using anything other than the most recent causes problems. Do I have to create and maintain a module for this package anyway? Or are the defaults robust enough that a package can remain a package without touching modularity at all? The answer to this is completely unclear to me -- what I've read seems to imply that I must create a module definition regardless.
This actually seems like the ideal case for a single stream -- instead of maintaining rawhide, f29, f28, epel7, you'd just maintain "latest", and that would get build into all of these releases simultaneously.
I still don't get why this subset case requires all the extra module goop? Couldn't we just have fedpkg have an "fedpkg build --all-releases" switch to just trigger on the same commit for all releases?