On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 08:35 +0200, nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net wrote:
> > Even if it eventually succeeds crash-landing it in Fedora
> > half
> > 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
> 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.
If Fedora community members are using Fedora infrastructure to build
Flatpaks that's really by definition part of the Fedora project, isn't
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
I think it's important to think ahead and be transparent about what we
are thinking about, so in that sense we're "planning" to ship things
Flatpak only. But I want to be clear that there is no *proposal* on the
table to ship things Flatpak only, and *no proposed timescale*. And
there won't be until we know how the tools work out for packagers, how
Flatpak usage works out for users, and we have a significant body of
Fedora packages built as Flatpaks to look at things like installed size
and network usage.
These are things we can only get to by building out the infrastructure
so that packagers can start trying building Flatpaks and users can
start trying installing them.
That's the hard and tedious stuff most people on this list care
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.
It's perfectly fine to be skeptical, it's perfectly fine to ask hard
questions about areas you think need more work.
But the only way that we get to something that is an evolution of how
Fedora currently works, that pays attention to the needs of current
Fedora users, and builds on the strengths of the Fedora infrastructure
and the people doing all the work in the Fedora community is to work on
it within Fedora.
Your earlier mail could definitely be taken to mean that we should go
off and work on Flatpak elsewhere, and when we have a fully working
ecosystem elsewhere, and have (on our own, without any engagement)
fully met all the needs of Fedora users, then we can look at
integrating that into Fedora. That sounds hard to distinguish from
ignoring Fedora and starting something else. :-)