----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Gallagher" <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
<devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 9:15:38 PM
Subject: Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 2:04 PM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh(a)splentity.com>
wrote:
>
> On Thursday, November 14, 2019 11:45:22 AM MST Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > You're assuming that parallel-install is a thing that everyone needs
> > from every package on their system.
>
> I'm not. However, if you're going to bring up 'the recommended solution
for
> doing "parallel-install" with modules', it makes sense to address
this.
>
> > Our research and surveys determined that this was not in fact the case
> > for
> > the overwhelming majority of real-world deployments. Most[1] deployments
> > function with a "one app per VM/container" mentality.
>
> This isn't surprising to me, as that's just an extension of what is done
> with
> physical hosts as well, when serving important services. The physical host
> or
> VM is often dedicated to said service, often at the recommendation of the
> software itself, for example FreeIPA recommends this.
>
> > In such cases, parallel-installability is at best unnecessary and (such
> > as
> > with SCLs) actively annoying to them.
>
> Only if actually implemented as SCLs, in my opinion, but that is definitely
> an
> opinion.
>
I phrased that wrong. It should have read: "_sometimes_ (such as with SCLs)".
> > Modules offers the availability of multiple streams of software like SCLs
> > does, but it sacrifices the ability to install them in parallel for the
> > ability to install them in the standard locations on disk so that other
> > software doesn't need to adapt to alternate locations (the number-one
> > complaint received about SCLs).
>
> So, are modules are meant to replace SCLs? If so, surely the inability to
> install multiple versions invalidates that?
>
They aren't incompatible technologies. If there is a case where
parallel-installability is valuable, an SCL can still be made. But for
the common case, we (Red Hat) determined that parallel-availability
was more valuable and common.
> For example, one of the issues I'm trying to resolve at work is providing
> both
> Python 2.7 and Python 3.5 on RHEL 6.
Python 2 and 3 are effectively separate tools and (given that they are
built with parallel-installability in mind) should absolutely not be
streams of the same module.
Now, python3:3.7 vs. python3:3.8 might be a more interesting question...
That is actually a non-issue, they are parallel installable if you exclude the main
python3 binary.
_______________________________________________
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
--
Regards,
Charalampos Stratakis
Software Engineer
Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat