> Even if it eventually succeeds crash-landing it in Fedora while
> the security and management tools are lacking is a great way for the
> distribution to get an awful reputation, while others will rip the
> fruits of this work some years later.
I'm entirely puzzled about how you think we could possibly land
support in Fedora well integrated with our infrastructure, and our
security and management tools without starting to work on it, which is
essentially what this change proposal is about
Working on it is fine. Improving it is fine. Proposing Fedora-generated Flatpacks outside
of Fedora is fine.
Planning to ship stuff as Flatpack only when basic questions such as inter-component
dependencies, automated deployment (kickstarts), actual network and disk use
(chromebooks), actual user adoption, actual convenience of the security model, etc are not
resolved is not. That's the hard and tedious stuff most people on this list care about
and GUI app writers, not a lot. That's the point of no easy return where Flatpack is
forced on users be it ready or not.
There is not a vast amount of trust given past history and the way some Flatpack
proponents clearly intend to shaft the methods that built Fedora (and its userbase) to
jumpstart something else.