On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 00:02, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Kevin Kofler
> The problem is that the RPMs that go into the Flatpaks are not FHS-
> compliant, so the RPMs will have to carry some conditionals and be built
Yes, that is true. Some apps will have to be patched for Flatpak, and
building them as both RPMs and Flatpaks is going to require conditionals. So
there will be some overhead if we support both.
I think this is unacceptable and a blocker. It didn't work with SCLs and
it won't work with Flatpak, either. Flatpaks must be possible to build
from unmodified RPMs or as part of RPM build process.
I think that's probably worthwhile. The way I see it, we have a
of users who prefer an entirely RPM-based system, although most users would
be better off with an Atomic system and just layering a few RPMs on top.
Could you explain the benefits of Atomic system + few layered RPMs vs. a
traditional Fedora installation?
I suspect we can satisfy both groups of users while doing only a
amount of work. Making patches conditional is not so hard.
By the way, I can't figure out how to look inside a Flatpak and review its
contents. Could someone provide some pointers? With plain RPMs or yum repos
I can just download the binary RPM and extract it (rpm2cpio foo.rpm|cpio
-div). I can also examine metadata using rpm -qp -i -R --provides and so on.
What is the equivalent for Flatpak?
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"