[CentOS-devel] A Big Idea for a New Decade [was: Minutes for CentOS Board of Directors 2019-12-18 Meeting]

Johnny Hughes

johnny at centos.org
Fri Jan 10 15:27:45 UTC 2020

On 1/9/20 7:54 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 10:55 AM Matthew Miller <mattdm at mattdm.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 06:35:13AM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
>>> How is that different than just building them in EPEL and being done with
>>> it.
>>> Has something changed in the EPEL rules that would now allow us to ship
>>> packages that conflict with the packages in base RHEL or a RHEL product
>>> like RHGS (GlusterFS) or RHCS (Ceph)?
>> Yes -- this should be possible with modularity. You'd ship the conflicting
>> packages as an alternate stream. No default streams allowed, but people could
>> opt in. And presumably there could exist media where that stream is enabled
>> by default.
> Since modularity has been pretty firmly proven not to work, both for
> RHEL 8 and in Fedora, why would you even consider  relying on it. It's
> already preven a destabilizing influence in RHEL and CentOS 8 and
> pretty much discarded for Fedora 32. The current chafing example in
> RHEL  8 and CentPS 8 is Perl dependencies, but they keep happening.
> I've not yet seen any hint that they will be any significant part of
> Fedora 32.

Well .. Why would CentOS 8 rely on it (modularity) .. because it is in
RHEL-8 source code.  As to whether or not it is good or the best way to
accomplish it's goals .. that is not relevant to it being in CentOS Linux 8.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20200110/0d0621d0/attachment.sig>

More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list