On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 21:03 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net>
wrote:
> >>> that's all true but you can be pretty sure if a
"app-store" with
> >>> bundeled applications exists *nobody* would package and maintain
> >>> them as RPM -> everybody would point with his finger to the app
> >>
> >> No because RPM packages apps *do* have benifits .. otherwise we
> >> wouldn't have this discussion.
> >>
> >>> if it goes in that direction, and it starts faster than anybody likes
> >>> you do a dramatical harm to the userbase which likes the consistent
> >>> package managment and *really used* conecpt of shared libraries
> >>
> >> Again those are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You can have sandboxed *and*
> >> rpm packaged apps at the same time.
> >
> > the most imporant word in your answer is *CAN*
> >
> > but you will not, nobody will package whatever application
> > as RPM if he is fine with the app-store, so you *could*
> > have both but i doubt at the end of the day it will happen
>
> And I disagree ... but there is a way to find out ... lets try and see ;)
That's rather a cavalier attitude.
You seem to agree that the future Harald posits is at least a
possibility.
No I don't. I just think that at this point the best way to prove that
to him is simply to show it how it works out in practice.
I still don't get why we have to argue that much about something like
this .. is giving upstreams a well defined way how to ship there
applications instead of letting them come up with a hack really that
bad?
Upstreams will always (and always had) seek was to do that .. simply
because there is demand. No one is forcing anyone to install such
apps.