On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 18:33 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > However, it is unclear to me 1) what you mean by mandate, and 2) how > you plan on doing so at a Fedora Project level particularly when the > project has not committed to shipping any kind of xdg-app at all. I > believe the desire and intentions are there, but mandate seems a bit > bold at this point. In the Workstation WG, there is consensus on moving towards distributing applications as xdg-app bundles. Applications will be required to bundle any library not provided by the xdg-app runtime. I don't think we have made any formal decisions regarding this, but it seems almost inevitable at this point. We also haven't defined what applications will be required to use xdg-app, but history tells us that if the answer isn't "almost everything," the project will fail. An optional application sandbox is a pointless application sandbox; developers aren't going to use it if it's optional, since that's more work for them. > Yes, Coprs are being used to provide useful software outside of the > Fedora repositories. This is not surprising at all. What would be > the good of building the Copr infrastructure if it wasn't used? I > also don't think it is all that much of a problem either. I don't really understand what the end goal is with coprs, I suppose, and I'm not sure if the copr developers or anyone else does either. There's really no practical difference to the end user whether the application is in Fedora or a copr, so long as it appears in GNOME Software. But if the packaging guidelines can be circumvented simply by migrating applications to a copr, then applications are going to migrate to coprs. Eventually we're going to have a lot fewer applications in the Fedora repositories. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I don't really see why it's desirable.... Cheers, Michael -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
