On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:24:26PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
> I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in
place,
> there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak.
Well, assuming that turns out to be the case, should our packaging
guidelines eventually become "do not make RPM packages of end-user
applications but instead make a downstream flatpak package"? I'd probably
have mixed feelings about this, too, and it's not what the Workstation
proposal suggests at the moment, either, but it seems to be where we're
eventually leading here.
Or, we could have tooling to turn a RPM into a flatpak, perhaps (I know
there's a script to do this for AppImages), and use this in our build
infrastructure?
Yes, is the direction I'm thinking. The Layered Image Build Service we
have for Docker can automatically rebuild when there are updates to
component RPMs, and it'd be nice if we could channel Flatpak through
that. Flatpak does have a little bit of awkwardness, though, since it
needs to understand nonstandard paths and locations, so it'd probably
involve rebuilding the RPMs, or at least some kind of crazy rearranging
of binaries.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader