On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:14 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at>
And I would pick a Copr over a Flatpak any day. I used and use
repositories, they are much nicer than some unpackaged blob. And
of them later is fairly easy.
Although you have some valid concerns about Flatpak, I think it's a big
mistake to promote Copr. Copr has worked out well enough for us so far
only because we use it on a very small scale. If there were many
popular Copr repos, they would quickly conflict with each other and it
would become a nightmare to use them. And conflicts will horribly break
users' systems. This isn't a theoretical problem, we know it's what
will happen because openSUSE already has many popular Coprs, they just
call it something different (OBS). Users bork their machines all the
time by enabling conflicting repos to install different packages. It's
a big problem.
Coprs are fine and safe so long as they are just carrying new versions
of applications and not replacing any system packages. In fact, we have
policy in Fedora Workstation that Coprs that follow these rules can
even be enabled by default, out-of-the-box. (We already have one or
two, though I don't remember what they are and it only works if you use
GNOME Software.) But frequently, the only way to ship a new version of
an application in a Copr is to also upgrade its dependencies, and there
you're getting into extremely dangerous territory. We can't have that.
Flatpak solves this problem.
P.S. On a completely unrelated note... and just brainstorming... so
long as our Flatpaks are built from RPMs, there's probably no great
technical reason to get rid of the RPMs, even if Flatpak becomes the
primary/default distribution mechanism. We mainly just need a way to
avoid confusion when reporting bugs, since the RPM and Flatpak versions
of applications could have different bugs.