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-0005.sig>