Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
mzerqung at 0pointer.de
Thu Nov 7 20:48:39 UTC 2013
On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Miloslav Trmač (mitr at volny.cz) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Lennart Poettering <mzerqung at 0pointer.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 07.11.13 03:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler at chello.at) wrote:
> >> Olav Vitters wrote:
> >> > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
> >> > is based upon systemd.
> >> That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
> > If you are referring to Ubuntu, then yes. But then again, they already
> > have their own app packaging format based around .debs and
> > AppArmor. So yeah, we might be dicks by not supporting non-systemd
> > systems, but they were dicks first, by not supporting non-Ubuntu systems
> > for their app images. And that's quite some consolation, no? ;-)
> No, calling each other dicks is overall not at all consoling.
> Is there a technical reason why we can't use their packaging format,
> interpreting it with our technologies but staying compatible?
Well, the most relevant bit is that they use apparmor for
sandboxing. Nobody else uses that.
And I don't think it is a good idea to use .deb as an image format.
So if the format on disk, and the execution runtime is totally different
for us and for them, there's little to share.
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
More information about the devel