On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:58 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:50 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 03:02:47PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > Correct, this is about ensuring that all Fedora installations have
> > > access to the modules we build, but there's no change to how
> > > they're stored on mirrors, etc.
> > Ok. Do we ever foresee the hybrid repository approach happening in Fedora?
>
> The hybrid approach is "things can be built as modules, but tagged into
> the base", right? What problems does this solve vs. allowing modules to
> be used as dependencies and build deps?
>
I think the "hybrid approach" he's referring to is having modular and
non-modular RPMs living in the same directory structure. I don't see that being needed
in Fedora at this point.
That's what I was referring to. I would agree it isn't *required* in
Fedora. I think it's still worth exploring though.
If he *does* mean the above, I think that's going to be solved by
Ursa Major (long explanation available on request), but that's probably an F30+
feature. And yeah, that will basically be allowing modules to be a dep for non-modular
content.
I think we need this too, but it's separate from what I was asking about.
josh