On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:32:03PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Owen Taylor wrote:
> As for standard application RPMs, it's really going to be something
> we figure out over time. My vision is something like:
> F27: packagers are *able* to create Flatpaks of their application.
> They must also maintain standard RPMs.
> F28: packagers (of graphical applications) are *encouraged* to create
> Flatpaks of their applications along side standard RPM packaging.
> They *may* drop the standard RPM packaging if there is good
> reason to.
> F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of
> their applications if possible. They *may* keep standard RPM
This sounds a lot like:
to me, a common strategy used by construction companies to subvert
environmental rules, obviously frowned upon. You are trying to submit small
innocous-sounding changes in an attempt to sneak in your plan to completely
subvert Fedora while minimizing opposition.
I really hope that FESCo will evaluate the above complete plan when
considering your change proposal, not just the thin salami slice that you
Well, let's be fair here, if it was indeed what you are describing, would it be
announced on this list 1.5 years in advance ?