On Wed, Aug 6, 2025 at 4:19 AM Carl George <carl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> After reading those changes, something jumps out at me. The term
> "rolling stream" is used, which sounds an awful lot like the RHEL
> concept of a rolling appstream. That makes more sense for RHEL with
> its long lifecycle, but it feels out of place in Fedora's much shorter
> lifecycle. The closest thing we have to that in Fedora are packages
> with an exception to the stable updates policy, which to your previous
> point would need a FESCo exception. Are we forcing a solution to a
> RHEL problem into Fedora when it doesn't really make sense for Fedora?
We are not trying to "force" anything, that's why we have those discussions. ;-)
Yes, the metapackage idea specifically was born since we need
something that would allow for the rolling appstream concept in RHEL,
and I thought we could use the same approach in Fedora. I was not
aware that the proposed policy as written in my original answer ("one
of the documented non-guarantees
of the `nodejs` would be that the version can change even during the
lifetime of a single distribution release") would be in violation of
the stable updates policy; I'm open to change the approach in the
light of that.
On the other hand, even if in Fedora the metapackage would be
relegated to just a fancy selector of the default stream, I would
still like to keep it, if only to not have to differentiate between
how the maintenance is done in RHEL and Fedora.
--
Jan Stanek
Software Engineer
Red Hat
IM: @jstanek
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
