Raphael Groner wrote:
> Kevin,
>>* that no package may ever be module-only, but
>> modules can only be used for non-default
>> versions.
>
> That statement doesn't make any sense for me. Can you explain, please? How
> should modules live without packages in background? We'd already discussed
> this in another thread.
I don't think you understood the sentence I wrote.
The current state is that we can have:
main repo: no package foo, no package libfoo (but many other packages)
module foo-1: foo-1.8.10, libfoo-1.8.12
module foo-2: foo-2.0.0, libfoo-2.0.1
but the "main repo: no package foo, no package libfoo" part is what I am
objecting to, especially if libfoo is used by more packages than just foo.
I want to require the main repo to contain some version of libfoo, and other
packages (from the main repo or from modules other than foo) should be
required to use the version in the main repo and not in some non-default
module.
Though I think that ideally, we would have only the main repo and pick one
version of foo to ship there instead of offloading this distribution job to
the user through arbitrarily-branched modules.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
