On 2019-10-24, Lukas Ruzicka <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM Igor Gnatenko < > [email protected]> wrote: >> This is also not only about maintainers, but end >> users too: >> >> FXX: fish 3.x is non-modular, stream 4.x exists >> FXX+1: fish 4.x is non-modular, stream 3.x exists >> > > This is not what I'd expect. I would rather like: > > FXX: fish 3 is non-modular, streams 3, 4 exist as modules > FXX+1: fish 4 is non-modular, streams 3, 4 exist as modules. > In your example the the packager maintains 4 versions (in the sense of dist-git branches and builds submitted to Koji) of the software (FXX fish 3, FXX+1 fish 4, stream 3 fish 3, stream 4 fish 4).
That's exactly what you as a package does not want. Igor's approach enabled you to offer the same set of fishes with only two branches. And as Igor pointed out the more difficult packaging you have the less packages, or package quality, or packagers you get. -- Petr _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected]
