On Mon, 2019-10-07 at 14:59 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 2:56 PM Simo Sorce <simo(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>
> I have to ask,
> given containers are so popular and can deal with any dependency
> without conflicting with system installed binaries, should we really
> continue with this very complicated modular design ?
>
> Shouldn't we go back to have default packages and then defer to
> "containers" for applications (and their dependencies) that need to
> deviate from system defaults for any reason ?
>
And where is the software for those containers coming from? Some
container registry like Docker Hub? One of the main points of
Modularity is to provide a trusted source of software to install into
containers.
We can definitely build it as part of Fedora, that doesn't mean we need
to expose regular users to "modularity". It would be a build artifact
that only people building the "fedora containers" need to deal with.
If you see how flatpaks are done that comes close. There is a flatpack
runtime that can be reused by multiple containers, but also on the same
machine you can be using multiple runtimes if different applications
pull in different runtimes.
In all cases what is in the runtime, how it is built and how it end on
your machine are transparent to the user, but clearly visibile if you
*want* to and also clearly under the control of the container provider.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce
RHEL Crypto Team
Red Hat, Inc