Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Ron Yorston [13/02/2019 08:45] :
> If so, why would they do that? Why would they *not* want their package
> to be available as a regular package? It seems counterproductive for
> them to downgrade their package to this second-class status.
The goal, IIUC (and I'm not at sure that I do), is to for each module to be
able to have its own lifecycle, seperate from the lifecycle of the
distribution.
Sure, that's my (possibly faulty) understanding too. But it doesn't
answer my question.
Why would a maintainer drop support for the regular package after
they've copied it into a module (or modules)? If, as Neal says,
"module-only" packages can't be used as build dependencies for
regular packages their package is now useless to any developer who
isn't using modules.
I'm not expecting an answer from Emmanuel. It would, though, be
interesting to hear from the maintainers of the orphaned packages.
Why? Why did you do that?
Ron