Except that modular packages shadow non-modular so instead of getting proper package you will have broken dependency.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 10:03 Nicolas Mailhot via devel <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Le 2019-11-14 22:01, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 4:00 PM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 14. 11. 19 21:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> >I proposed earlier around the major
>> > upgrade rebuilds (letting us set other modules as `buildrequires:` of
>> > `python: [ ]` for stream expansion) without actually having to build
>> > the complete python stack in the modules. That might be a really
>> > convenient strategy, honestly.
>>
>> Convenient to achieve what exactly?
>>
>
> To achieve an easy way to deal with modular rebuilds for new Python 3
> versions.

How is that different, exactly, from adding a
Provides: module(modulename)
for in-module packages

and letting packagers use a normal dep syntax like
(foo with module(modulename))
whenever they want to express they want the module version of a
particular dep?

Except for adding the opaque module object to the mix that obscures all
dependency chain checks?

Regards,

--
Nicolas Mailhot
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@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