Proposal: Add a separate “flatpaks/” namespace.

[Owen Taylor]

Currently, the content for a Flatpak in Fedora can be found in
modules/<application>. E.g.:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/quadrapassel/tree/master - I’d
like to propose creating a separate namespace in src.fedoraproject.org
- flatpaks/

Benefits:
 * Allow automation to easily distinguish Flatpaks from other modules.
(https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...
)
 * Make it easy to browse through the source of available Flatpaks
 * Reduce some confusion. A Flatpak is a module, but it’s *also* a
container, and the dist-git repository will include files for both.

Downsides:
 * We have a few graphical applications that are available as standard
loose-rpm macros (gimp, rawtherapee, skychart). While it should work
to have flatpaks/gimp and modules/gimp build different streams of the
gimp module, it’s going to be more confusing than different branches
in the same repository. (There are even possibilities for using the
*same* branch using module-stream-expansion, though that’s not
something I’d encourage at the moment.)

Needed steps:
 * Remove special casing of flatpak => modules in Bodhi
   https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/blob/develop/bodhi/server/models.py...
 * Adjust namespace special-casing in fedpkg
   https://pagure.io/fedpkg/blob/master/f/fedpkg/cli.py
 * Adjust namespace special-casing in fedscm_admin
   https://pagure.io/fedscm-admin/blob/master/f/fedscm_admin/utils.py
 * In fedscm_admin: Map flatpaks namespace to the ‘module’ PDC branch
type when storing the SLA into the PDC, to avoid PDC changes, and
because the SLA really is a module SLA.
 * Adjust distgit pagure configuration to add flatpaks to
ALLOWED_PREFIX and REQUIRED_GROUPS
 
https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/tree/roles/dist...
 * Add flatpaks/ to the kojid allowed_scms configuration
 
https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/tree/roles/koji...
 * Add flatpaks/ to the module-build-service SCMS configuration
  
https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/tree/roles/mbs/...
 * Adjust the owner-sync-pagure script to handle flatpaks/
  
https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/tree/roles/bodh...
* Move or reimport existing Flatpak repositories
  (modules/eog, modules/feedreader, modules/flatpak-common,
modules/flatpak-runtime,
   modules/gnome-clocks, modules/gnome-tetravex, modules/quadrapassel)

Potential issues:
 * We should probably move flatpak-common to the flatpaks/ namespace
for ease of discovery, but it isn’t in any way a flatpak, it’s just a
module that Flatpaks can depend on.
 * The ability of modules to include other modules won’t work without
further adjustments to the MBS config.py (MODULES_ALLOW_REPOSITORY) -
I don't see this as useful functionality for Flatpaks.

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 12:28:51PM -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
>   * Reduce some confusion. A Flatpak is a module, but it’s *also* a
>  container, and the dist-git repository will include files for both. 
I'm +1 to this for this reason. I think it's less confusing than the
downside loose-module confusion. :)

In related news, I'm killing the rawtherapee "loose-rpm" module and just
making a flatpak one.

Question: would this open up the possiblity of offering different _flatpak_
streams? I'd like to have a stream where the rc releases are built so people
who want to try those can.


>   * We should probably move flatpak-common to the flatpaks/ namespace
>  for ease of discovery, but it isn’t in any way a flatpak, it’s just a
>  module that Flatpaks can depend on. 
I'd suggest just making a flatpak-common repo in flatpaks/ with a README
linking to the module namespace.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Owen Taylor]

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:28 PM Owen Taylor <otaylor(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>   * In fedscm_admin: Map flatpaks namespace to the ‘module’ PDC
> branch
>  type when storing the SLA into the PDC, to avoid PDC changes, and
>  because the SLA really is a module SLA. 
Digging into this, I don't think this is right - it would break the
1:1 mapping between pagure branches and "component branches" in PDC
that we currently have and the scripts count on. I think the right
thing is:

 * Modify the ReleaseComponentType table in the PDC database to add 'flatpak'

[ Or could be done by adding a migration to the PDC codebase, adding
the redeploying, but considering that we're working on replacing the
PDC, doesn't seem worthwhile.]

Owen