----- Original Message -----
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks =
> Change owner(s):
> * Owen Taylor <otaylor(a)redhat.com>
This change is leaving several questions unanswered:
* As I understand it, those Flatpaks are going to be built from RPMs. Is the
intent to ship both the original RPMs and the Flatpak or only the Flatpak
(or is this going to depend on the individual package)? And if the former,
are the shipped RPMs going to be the FHS-compliant version or the one
relocated into Flatpak's proprietary prefix?
* What is the advantage of shipping Fedora distribution packages to Fedora
users as Flatpaks? I see only drawbacks compared to RPM, because everything
not included in the base runtime must be bundled, so we have all the usual
issues of bundled libraries: larger downloads, more disk consumption, more
RAM consumption (shared system libraries are also shared in RAM), slower and
less efficient delivery of security fixes, FHS noncompliance, etc. And the
portability argument is moot when we are talking about delivering Fedora
software to Fedora users.
Why do we care about FHS compliance inside a Flatpak? And why would it be
slower to release security fixes?
I strongly oppose this change.
You forgot the positive changes such as:
- dogfooding and testing for the sandboxing technologies
- make it possible to create Flatpaks quicker for some more complicated apps
- developers not having to learn GPG to sign their releases
- more efficient update tracking than RPM (eg. no need to download 20 megs of
metadata to know there's nothing to update)
There's plenty more depending on which part of the chain you'd be in.