On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 17:27 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 17:05, Owen Taylor wrote:
> * Bundled libraries will not be arbitrary source code builds, they
> be built from the exact same spec files in dist-git.
> * We will track (via the PDC) what versions of what packages are
"Product Definition Center" - https://pdc.fedoraproject.org/
> included in every Flatpak runtime and app we ship, and can
> automatically rebuild and update the runtime and apps as needed.
> * We will include a manifest of the component RPM versions in each
> Flatpak runtime and app.
> There are definitely some open questions, and we'll have to pay
> close attention to how much duplication we are getting in practice,
> and look at whether we need to adjust the composition of the Fedora
> runtime and our build methods to reduce duplication, but it's
> definitely not going to be a Wild West where every application you
> install on your system has its own copy of libz that was downloaded
> somewhere off the internet.
That is excellent. I wish this had been mentioned either on the
change proposal page or early in this thread. Thank you for having
thought this through. If that's the plan, then it should have much
less opposition then you see in this thread.
I'll think about ways to make this information more explicit in the
proposal. Thanks for the feedback!
I still think that this proposal makes more sense for Atomic
Workstation than for a traditional RPM-based Fedora product due to
duplication between Flatpak runtime(s) and installed packages.
Well, certainly one big reason we're working on this is that we want to
have applications available to people trying out Atomic Workstation!
While there are real advantages to Flatpaks on top of a traditional
install as well, in the near term, most people running in that mode
will still have most of their applications installed as RPMs.