On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 05:44:37PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:16:33AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:08 AM Martin Jackson <mhjacks(a)swbell.net> wrote:
>
>
> > I use flatpaks on Fedora (Discord and okular), and I've really enjoyed
> > the experience with them. I'm not sure how well that would translate to
> > the server environment though, but that general approach seems to do a
> > good job of preserving user experience while isolating potentially
> > troublesome conflicts in a way that doesn't mess up the "base
system".
> >
>
> I love how people hold up "containers" as a solution to these problems
> without considering for a moment how exactly the container itself gets
> built. If you were to look into the flatpak build system in Fedora,
> you'd see that they are using Modularity to construct them.
>
> One of the reasons for Modularity is that we agree that containers are
> one "right" way to handle parallel-installability. But we also know
> from past experience (SCLs) that having content in unusual locations
> like /opt means that applications have to be modified. By using
> modules to put the version of software you want into the standard
> location and then using a container to isolate it and/or provide
> parallel-installability, you also get the assurance of knowing the the
> content in your container is just as trusted as your standard RPM
> deployments.
IIUC from the docs, when using Modularity to build Flatpaks, the
prefix is changed to /app instead of /usr, which makes it much
closers to SCL:
The relocation to /app brings exactly the same issues as SCL
<
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/848>,
<
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/847>.
-- Petr