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.