Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com> said:
From my also little understanding of modularity, this is so you can
reinstall base perl packages. In some ways ( I am glossing over things
here), modular rpms always beat bare rpms because a module can put in rules
to say 'you can install this package but it does not work with these rpms
so they need to be removed'. So I think any modules we write which would
over-ride non-modular packages, we would also need to write a 'get me back
my f'ing defaults' module which stubs in a similar way the perl and some
other modules do.
Thanks for the explanation - I agree with you, that if RHEL doesn't
already have a base module (like the perl example you listed), then any
EPEL module that overrides a base RHEL package needs to also proved the
module to get back to RHEL.
I get the desire/need for modularity... it just seems so complicated.
As a really small-time packager, modularity has been over my head (but
the few packages I have don't need it, so I also haven't tried super
Chris Adams <linux(a)cmadams.net>