Goal: Increased Modularity?

[Richi Plana]

On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 11:28 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Sure, and my point is, we are attempting to do just that..where there
> is real benefit. Things like virtual provides and the alternatives
> system are used when it makes sense. And "where it makes sense" is
> always in flux. There's an effort afoot right now to virtualize how we
> deal with logos for example. There's no doubt in my mind that we are
> putting thought and effort into modularizing things to make re-spins
> more possible as the need arises. It helps immensely, if discussions
> are grounded around real situations that would benefit from additional
> modularization, and not hypotheticals.  I would humbly suggest that
> you take a little time and play around with repoquery as found in the
> yum-utils package and explore the dependancy chains a little bit using
> the tools --whatprovides, --whatrequires, --alldeps features to get a
> feel for how much virtualization is being used at the packaging level.

I'm not saying you guys aren't. I'm just wondering if it's written in a
guideline somewhere or if each person has to come up with the same
realization each and every time. If there's something to show people who
might be interested in Fedora why they would want to use Fedora (because
the people working on it are smart cookies based on what they've said
they're doing).

Best practices aren't based on current nor existing problems. I do
apologize if I've wasted people's time, but I just wondered if there
would be value in having certain things written down.

And yes, I am starting to get a feel for the intricacies of the rpm and
yum utils.
--

Richi Plana