Stephen Gallagher wrote:
You're assuming that parallel-install is a thing that everyone
needs
from every package on their system. Our research and surveys
determined that this was not in fact the case for the overwhelming
majority of real-world deployments. Most[1] deployments function with
a "one app per VM/container" mentality. In such cases,
parallel-installability is at best unnecessary and (such as with SCLs)
actively annoying to them. Modules offers the availability of multiple
streams of software like SCLs does, but it sacrifices the ability to
install them in parallel for the ability to install them in the
standard locations on disk so that other software doesn't need to
adapt to alternate locations (the number-one complaint received about
SCLs).
[1] Yes, I realize that "most" may not include you. Every environment
is unique, but we have to try and optimize our efforts for the largest
set of consumers possible. We reasoned that containers were a
sufficient workaround for the cases not following the "one app per
VM/container" approach.
That may be true for RHEL, but I do not see how that would be the case in
Fedora (or even CentOS), at all. It is also a very server-centric view: I do
not know any desktop user working that way.
I would really like to know where your data comes from exactly, whom you
surveyed, and how you counted the deployments.
Kevin Kofler