Hi,
When I do "dnf module list --all" on CentOS Stream 8, I also see the stream versions installed by default, e.g. postgresql 10.
But on CentOS Stream 9, I only see the newer stream version, like postgresql 15 and nodejs 18 (and not postgresql 13 and nodejs 16).
Can anyone explain what's happening here?
Thanks,
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:08 AM Jos Vos jos@xos.nl wrote:
Hi,
When I do "dnf module list --all" on CentOS Stream 8, I also see the stream versions installed by default, e.g. postgresql 10.
But on CentOS Stream 9, I only see the newer stream version, like postgresql 15 and nodejs 18 (and not postgresql 13 and nodejs 16).
Can anyone explain what's happening here?
Modules are one of several packaging formats we have. With CentOS Stream 9/ RHEL 9, we took user and customer feedback on how the default versions of software are packaged and determined that the defaults should be normal RPMs. Newer and alternative versions of software will be delivered as modules in some cases, or as regular RPMs with applicable versioning in others.
josh
Il 2023-01-12 16:10 Josh Boyer ha scritto:
Modules are one of several packaging formats we have. With CentOS Stream 9/ RHEL 9, we took user and customer feedback on how the default versions of software are packaged and determined that the defaults should be normal RPMs. Newer and alternative versions of software will be delivered as modules in some cases, or as regular RPMs with applicable versioning in others.
josh
Hi Josh, can I ask the rationale behind this decision?
It seems "strange" to have some different version in the main repos, with versioned RPMs, and other in specific modules (which needs to be manually enabled).
Regards.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 3:18 PM Gionatan Danti g.danti@assyoma.it wrote:
Il 2023-01-12 16:10 Josh Boyer ha scritto:
Modules are one of several packaging formats we have. With CentOS Stream 9/ RHEL 9, we took user and customer feedback on how the default versions of software are packaged and determined that the defaults should be normal RPMs. Newer and alternative versions of software will be delivered as modules in some cases, or as regular RPMs with applicable versioning in others.
josh
Hi Josh, can I ask the rationale behind this decision?
It seems "strange" to have some different version in the main repos, with versioned RPMs, and other in specific modules (which needs to be manually enabled).
There have been many discussions on modularity, both on this list and on lists like the epel and fedora devel lists, but I'll give a brief subset.
Modularity provides parallel availability but not parallel installatability. Some software needs or perhaps wants to be parallel installable. Also, some upstream language stacks such as python have implemented parallel availability/installability inherently in their framework, which eliminates the need for modules.
Ultimately, the Red Hat teams are using modularity where they believe it makes sense and using regular packaging to reduce complexity for customers where it doesn't provide much benefit.
josh
Il 2023-01-12 23:01 Josh Boyer ha scritto:
There have been many discussions on modularity, both on this list and on lists like the epel and fedora devel lists, but I'll give a brief subset.
Modularity provides parallel availability but not parallel installatability. Some software needs or perhaps wants to be parallel installable. Also, some upstream language stacks such as python have implemented parallel availability/installability inherently in their framework, which eliminates the need for modules.
Ultimately, the Red Hat teams are using modularity where they believe it makes sense and using regular packaging to reduce complexity for customers where it doesn't provide much benefit.
josh
Make sense. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Regards.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 2:02 PM Josh Boyer jwboyer@redhat.com wrote:
Ultimately, the Red Hat teams are using modularity where they believe
it makes sense and using regular packaging to reduce complexity for customers where it doesn't provide much benefit.
Thanks for the explanation.
For those who want to know more, here is the documentation I used when I was trying to figure out modules:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/9/htm...
I came to CentOS after Fedora and was unfamiliar with the concept of modules. I saw "evidence" of modules in the CentOS repos but didn't know how to use them until I read this documentation.
My "use case" for modules was getting a newer version of Ruby, but now I notice that EPEL also ships newer Ruby versions.
On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 12:09 PM Steven Rosenberg passthejoe@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 2:02 PM Josh Boyer jwboyer@redhat.com wrote:
Ultimately, the Red Hat teams are using modularity where they believe
it makes sense and using regular packaging to reduce complexity for customers where it doesn't provide much benefit.
Thanks for the explanation.
For those who want to know more, here is the documentation I used when I was trying to figure out modules:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/9/htm...
I came to CentOS after Fedora and was unfamiliar with the concept of modules. I saw "evidence" of modules in the CentOS repos but didn't know how to use them until I read this documentation.
-
Gionatan Danti -
Jos Vos -
Josh Boyer -
Steven Rosenberg