On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Debarshi Ray <rishi.is(a)lostca.se> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of
> > their applications if possible. They *may* keep standard RPM
> > packaging.
>
> At least we see where this is going.
>
> If RPMs of the graphical application work fine now, what on earth is
> the point of forcing packagers to make Flatpaks? Sandboxing isn't one
> of them - as already explained, sandboxing is orthogonal to packaging.
Huh? How would you get sandboxing without Flatpaks? Unless you are
proposing a different sandboxing technology.
As above, it could be the exact same sandbox technology with the same
portals and everything. The sandboxed program would just be files in
/usr instead of a Flatpak.
--Andy