On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 7:44 AM Ian McInerney <ian.s.mcinerney(a)ieee.org> wrote:
> Roughly speaking, the criteria for including software is a) will
not
> cause legal or other problems for Fedora to point to b) does not
> overlap Fedora Flatpaks or software in Fedora that could easily be
> made into a Flatpak c) works reasonably well. For Fedora 35, We expect
> to include all software from the top 50 most popular applications on
> Flathub that meet these criteria plus selected other software of
> interest to the Fedora target audience - Fedora community members are
> welcome to propose additions.
Does this mean that FESCO is now forcing Fedora packagers to maintain Fedora Flatpaks and
respond to their related issues when many of them seem to be created without the
packagers' knowledge/consent, and there is no documentation in the packaging
guidelines/wiki about how to actually do anything for them, or information about where the
manifests for them actually live?
This proposal doesn't really change anything with respect to Fedora
Flatpaks. (Docs for Fedora Flatpaks:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/flatpak/)
Are you concerned that there's some implicit threat that if you don't
create a Fedora Flatpak for your Fedora RPM, users will be directed to
the Flathub version? We're really not anticipating overlap between the
set of applications packaged in Fedora and the set included in the
filtered-view of Flathub. Any exceptions to that would definitely have
to be coordinated closely with the relevant package maintainer.
Owen