On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:59:37PM +0000, Debarshi Ray wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of
> > their applications if possible. They *may* keep standard RPM
> > packaging.
> At least we see where this is going.
> If RPMs of the graphical application work fine now, what on earth is
> the point of forcing packagers to make Flatpaks? Sandboxing isn't one
> of them - as already explained, sandboxing is orthogonal to packaging.
Huh? How would you get sandboxing without Flatpaks? Unless you are
proposing a different sandboxing technology.
Things like libvirt-sandbox have been around for a really long time
and don't require special packaging (in fact they work with any
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into KVM guests.