On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:05:07PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
if the module EOL is before a given Fedora version goes EOL, it
should
never be proposed for installation in that Fedora version. In other words,
if foo:3.15 stream has EOL of 1/4/2020, it should be shown in
'dnf module list' in F<=31, but not F>=32.
I think you wanted to write F<=30. F30 ends in 2020-04.
Isn't "dnf" stage too late? Should it be filtered sooner? E.g. enforced by
Bodhi? Current Bodhi prevents from pushing updates into EOL-ed Fedoras.
Or it could be prevented from building in MBS. When MBS expands platform:[] to
all supported Fedoras, it could also take other stream's EOL into account. Not
only platform EOL. It could save Koji resources.
> My understanding of current policy is that it would not be
permitted
> to have such a module in current fedora. It could only be included
> in a version of fedora where it will receive updates for the entire
> life cycle of that Fedora version.
Exactly. The question is whether this happens like this, or not.
I scanned
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity, but I don't see
any mention of that.
While your approach simplifies the decisions a user should do, it also
prevents from providing streams that have a shorter life than Fedora. E.g.
non-LTS Java only has a life span for 6 months. How should be delivered these
"rapidly" developed projects?
-- Petr