On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 7:51 PM Diego Herrera <dherrera@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I like the idea of being able to manage/install flatpaks through > dnf/yum in the same way as we do with rpms... but I'm worried that it > could be a problem if we source them from a 3rd party like Flathub. > In the case of Flathub, their policies regarding what can be > distributed and how it can get built are incompatible with the > policies that we enforce from Fedora. Many of their packages have > bundled binaries, and could be using code that is incompatible with > our policies, so for this to be viable I think it would be reasonable > to limit the packages to come from a trusted source (like the Fedora > flatpak repository [0]). > > That being said, an alternative would be to build and distribute > flatpak bundles [1] through RPMs, that way you don't lose control on > how flatpak packages are built, and it would make it easier to > differentiate them from the ones that are installed directly from > other sources. > > Another idea would add the ability for dnf to manage the flatpak apps > installed on the system directly through plugins / patches ... but IDK > how practical / viable / maintainable that would end up to be... I'm pretty sure this wouldn't work with how flatpak shares files across different runtimes and applications with ostree. Additionally, flatpaks are installed in locations that either shouldn't (/var) or can't ever (/home) be managed by system-wide package managers. Fabio -- _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
