On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 20:08 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 20:53 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> I mean I really hope you're not saying that upstream developers
> will
> be
> able to start demanding that a third party packager's work is
> removed
> from Fedora!
Hm... it's not supposed to be an antagonistic process. We were
expecting it to be more of an "oh, upstream made a Flatpak, that's
better than an RPM, so let's switch to that now."
This its bit of an
edge-case I still think it should be noted - some
mostly GUI apps can also be used as command line utilities. One example
is the above mentioned Inkscape - you can call the inkscape binary and
use it to non-interactively manipulate SVG files.
Would that still work as expected when calling the Flatpak packaged
Inkscape (eq. wont the sandbox interfere & would the binary be even
accessible in a reasonable way from the command line) ?
In any case it currently works fine with the RPM packaged Inkscape.
>
> Certainly we're not going to come along and try to delete packages
> over
> the maintainers' objections. In general, I expect package maintainers
> would be deciding whether or not to make the switch, but yeah: if the
> upstream developers request that we switch to their Flatpak, I would
> hope that package maintainers would be willing to accommodate
> upstream.
> In the unlikely event that upstream gets into conflict with the
> Fedora
> packager over whether to replace the package with a Flatpak (or
> upstream-provided RPM), the current plan was for that to be handled
> on
> a case-by-case basis by FESCo. Hopefully such situations would be
> quite
> rare.
>
> Michael
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject
> .org