Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
drago01 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 5 21:11:39 UTC 2013
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 9:56 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at 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 at thelounge.net> wrote:
>> > Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
>> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at 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
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
Upstreams will always (and always had) seek was to do that .. simply
because there is demand. No one is forcing anyone to install such
More information about the devel