On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:15 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 01:08:23PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> I think I mentioned that it would be possible, as OpenPKG actually
> worked this way.
>
> The key for this would be improving the user-experience with
> interacting with source RPMs and spec files with DNF. We've optimized
> *heavily* for remote builds, but a good chunk of how Gentoo's
> mechanism works is built around supporting local permutations. We just
> don't have that fleshed out yet.
Well, exactly. This is what I meant with my short "who is going to do that
work?" comment. Gentoo's solution is not a drop-in thing for Fedora and
would require changes to RPM, DNF, and the *significant* work of figuring
out what all this would mean in a binary-focused distribution. We'd
certainly need a whole *new* MBS equivalent, and there's surely a ton of
"unknown unknowns" lurking as well.
And then all of that would get us to... sort of where we are now? Basically
the same thing as with Modularity's "virtual repositories" approach with
different tradeoffs?
If someone thinks that my skepticism is wrong and that the Modularity team
is on the complete wrong path, I have no objection to anyone who wants to
work on something new solution, either as a prototype or a more detailed
proposal. Awesome! If it gets to the point where it's a viable alternative,
we can weigh those options. But the team in Fedora actually working on
Modularity today includes some pretty smart, very invested Fedora people and
I don't feel bad at all about standing up for their wanting to continue to
refine the path they've chosen and are working on.
To me this is just like the Flatpak and Snap thing — both have some
strengths and weaknesses. I'm absolutely supportive of the effort of the
Workstation team (and Red Hat's Desktop team!) to drive that work in Fedora.
I happen to personally (and professionally) think that's good for Fedora.
But I'm _also_ happy to make room for you and whoever else to work on doing
something similar with Snap.
If someone were to come by and say "I don't understand why you're doing all
this, when it's been solved by AppImage since 2004", I'd say the same thing
I'm telling Randy: you're welcome to work on that, but it's rude to tell the
people who are invested in building something different that _they're_ the
problem.
If that's demoralizing... well, I don't know what to to tell you. I want to
support people doing things and exploring and contributing.
That's all well and good, but you seem to be forgetting that people
are actually getting *paid* to work on modularity for fedora.
Any proposal for an alternative, which apparently needs to arrive at
least at MVP / proof-of-concept quality before it is even *considered*
as an alternative without getting called "trolling", can likely only
be worked on in somebody's spare time. I don't think that's a fair
requirement, and "exploring and contributing" will stay limited to RH
employees if that's the case.
Fabio
> --
> Matthew Miller
> <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
> Fedora Project Leader
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org