On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 18:33 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
However, it is unclear to me 1) what you mean by mandate, and 2) how
you plan on doing so at a Fedora Project level particularly when the
project has not committed to shipping any kind of xdg-app at all. I
believe the desire and intentions are there, but mandate seems a bit
bold at this point.
In the Workstation WG, there is consensus on moving towards
distributing applications as xdg-app bundles. Applications will be
required to bundle any library not provided by the xdg-app runtime. I
don't think we have made any formal decisions regarding this, but it
seems almost inevitable at this point. We also haven't defined what
applications will be required to use xdg-app, but history tells us that
if the answer isn't "almost everything," the project will fail. An
optional application sandbox is a pointless application sandbox;
developers aren't going to use it if it's optional, since that's more
work for them.
Yes, Coprs are being used to provide useful software outside of the
Fedora repositories. This is not surprising at all. What would be
the good of building the Copr infrastructure if it wasn't used? I
also don't think it is all that much of a problem either.
I don't really understand what the end goal is with coprs, I suppose,
and I'm not sure if the copr developers or anyone else does either.
There's really no practical difference to the end user whether the
application is in Fedora or a copr, so long as it appears in GNOME
Software. But if the packaging guidelines can be circumvented simply by
migrating applications to a copr, then applications are going to
migrate to coprs. Eventually we're going to have a lot fewer
applications in the Fedora repositories. This isn't necessarily a bad
thing, but I don't really see why it's desirable....
Cheers,
Michael