On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 04:58:55PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > So I think the messaging around Fedora 25 is that this is a new way > to install Fedora - that it is suitable in some cases, and not in other > cases. And we can start with an even narrower use case. *nod* > We basically need: > > * A central registry for xdg-app repositories > > * A way of deciding what goes into that registry; the > 3rd-party-software proposal is meant to cover that, but basically > just defers the hard part to the working group. > > * Perhaps a "bootstrap" repository where we make existing > Fedora applications available as xdg-apps We have a big existing community which works to provide applications in Fedora as RPMs. Rather than making this basically be "thanks for all that but we don't need you anymore because it's all third-party with xdg-app", I hope we can bring those contributors in and along. And, I think we're very likely to need more than just bootstrap, for two reasons. First, the existing packaging model includes ongoing ownership and responsibility, and for all the warts that has, I think it'd be a big step backwards in Fedora quality and the trust users put in us to drop that. And second, while I hope that we can achieve World Domination™ with this, convincing all application developers and upstreams is not going to be instant. Maybe I'm just reading too much into the word "bootstrap". In any case, I think this needs to be high priority and invested in for this to succeed, rather than a "perhaps". > > For example, if we could produce xdg-apps through Fedora Release > > Engineering using the same build pipeline that's being worked on for > > Docker images, the work required would collapse to creating > > documentation for how to do that and any related policies, rather > > than a whole *new* releng change. > That sounds like a good idea to keep things sane on the Fedora side, > but I doubt many users understand the complexity of release engineering > and would pay attention to that. The release engineering complexity is on the backend (and, yes, very real). The target here is the Fedora contributor community, and the goal is that applications could be packaged for xdg-app using dist-git (ideally, future dist-git with pagure), built with fedpkg, and fed to automated tests with taskotron, and released for testing feedback with bodhi. That's some complexity, but it's also functionality that we'd want to duplicate somehow or somewhere _anyway_, and I think there's huge value in using a familiar workflow. > Alignment that make reusing the name makes sense, to me, would be: > * Consistent talking points about what advantages "Atomic" brings - > stability, isolation, etc. > * Good support in the Workstation product for developing applications > to deploy on Atomic Host. > It certainly would be a problem if someone downloaded "Fedora Atomic > Workstation" then found they need to reinstall a non-atomic "Fedora > Workstation" to actually write apps for Atomic... I definitely agree on these points. I'm not sure it's a complete list, though. For example, I think "uses Nulecule" would be valuable, too. (And if Nulecule needs to be extended to cover desktop needs, we should get the people working on xdg-app involved in extending it.) -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
