On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 01:29:01PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> If I look at this from my POV as the upstream maintainer of a graphical
> application wishing to make it widely available to users of many distros.
> The question is whether it is beneficial for me to join Fedora packaging
> world to package my app, or whether to package it standalone as a flatpak
> and never get involved in Fedora at all.
> With the proposed F27 rule here, I would have less work todo if I just
> built my app as a flatpak, as I can avoid creating RPMs and just build
> a single flatpak that should work on all distros. IOW by mandating
> continued creation of RPMs, alongside flatpaks, we would be discouraging
> people from becoming Fedora maintainers.
From a user standpoint, what's the difference? What's the benefit from
having upstream deliver their software Flatpak-only under the Fedora
umbrella? It may as well come directly from upstream at that point. The
whole point of delivering software under the Fedora umbrella is to deliver
it as RPMs.
The same difference as for software coming as a RPM from upstream compared
to an RPM in Fedora:
- we can patch stuff and adjust build options
- the user can trust Fedora more than upstream
(for licensing checks, for looking over the code, for being still
here next year to patch or rebuild the artifacts if needed)
If there is no RPM, delivering through Fedora is completely useless.
That's not even true today. We get stuff from Fedora in formats like
file system images and ostree repos, and they are quite useful.