[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [scl.org] Is Software Collections abandoned?



On 2021-05-11 10:25 a.m., Amrhein, Karl wrote:
>> But, indeed, GCC 9 and 10 are the only ones maintained by RH
>> and modularity is the new way (for now) to provides new
>> versions of applications / languages.
> Providing newer versions of apps is only one feature of SCL.  
>
> The killer feature of SCL is to have multiple versions of apps installed *simultaneously*.  For a multi user Linux host, this is a requirement, and modularity is not a replacement for SCL. 

I keep having to explain this over and over again.

modularity and SCL are orthogonal, serve different purposes.  Modularity
does not preclude the need of SCL (or vice-versa)

Another important feature is allow a software and its dependencies to be
installed without interfering with the system-installed packages, or
even packages from another layered software.  These may not only need
different versions of dependencies than the ones installed by the OS (by
any modules available even) and the software may have a life-cycle
completely different from the OS so updates do not happen at the same time.

>
> When you have thousands of users, it’s not a choice of GCC 9 or 10, the requirement is GCC 9 *and* 10. 
>
>> [1] as I think SCL, allowing multiple versions to be installed
>> simultaneously, is a great feature, very valuable for dev
> For many customers, including us, allowing multiple versions to be installed simultaneously is a requirement for production. 
>
> Modularity is great for what it does, but it is *not* a replacement for SCL, unless it can allow for multiple versions of a package to be installed simultaneously.  
>
> We need modularity AND SCL. 
>
> _______________________________________________
> SCLorg mailing list
> SCLorg redhat com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/sclorg


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]