A Modularity rethink for Fedora

Posted Jan 8, 2018 16:23 UTC (Mon) by mattdm (subscriber, #18)
In reply to: A Modularity rethink for Fedora by farnz
Parent article: A Modularity rethink for Fedora

I think it's useful to think of this in three separate parts:

* user experience
* what it looks like from an infrastructure/repo/mirror point of view
* packager experience

The decision to use a merged repo with special DNF support for modular awareness vs. managing multiple repos (like the mostly-discarded Copr Playground plugin http://dnf-plugins-core.readthedocs.io/en/latest/copr.html) _mostly_ affects the middle part. It leaks a little bit into the user experience when it comes to managing and enabling things, but ideally with _either_ approach it'd be mostly transparent.

To me, really, that middle part is basically "implementation detail" and it's the user and packager experiences that I care about.

A Modularity rethink for Fedora

Posted Jan 8, 2018 16:48 UTC (Mon) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]

Yeah - it's just that what sgallagh originally posted sounded to me like the UX and packager experience would be exactly the same as with multiple repos (like COPR Playground provided). I was hence curious; there was clearly a lot of information elided in the original comment, as otherwise people I assume are competent have spent a lot of time reinventing COPR Playground and similar tools.

The follow-on from sgallagh clarified things nicely, though - it's at least clear why it's hard, even if I'm not yet convinced that I'd solve the problems the way they are (but then, I'm not doing the work, nor do I understand well enough to provide informed criticism, so I'll leave them to do the work the way they see best).