----- Original Message ----- > We've been working on the idea that we should have a way to take Fedora RPMs > and > convert them into xdg-app runtimes and applications; by doing this inside of > Koji > we would be able to pretty transparently provide a set of xdg-apps for many > existing applications in Fedora. > > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/BuildingXdgApps tries to work out > possible details.) > > I have an initial prototype of this working with a branch of Koji > (https://pagure.io/fork/otaylor/koji/commits/xdg-app, still rough), and that > raised some questions to me about around versioning: > > * How should the fedora runtime be versioned? Is each Fedora release > (23,24,25) > a separate branch in the repository? (I'm not entirely sure if the "branch" > of the runtime the same as "runtime-version" that is part of > the xdg-app app metadata?) > > * What happens if we evolve the Fedora runtime during the development release > - > say we add a new package to it that we find we are repeatedly bundling into > applications. Can we make the behavior for the user better than simply > having > xdg-apps that rely on the new package in the runtime die with obscure error > messages? > > * How should apps generated from Fedora packages be versioned? Presumably we > don’t > want each Fedora version to be a branch in this case, since we want > automatic > updates. Are refs pointing to devel/testing/stable versions are something > added post-build into the repository? > > * We probably will be creating some sort of bundles when we build apps and > runtimes > in Koji. (This is what my prototype does using the existing xdg-app ostree > delta > format.) What do we use for filenames for these bundles? The RPM nvr of the > application itself doesn't tell the story because of the bundling of > dependencies > in the application. Is the filename just based off the hash of the xdg-app > like > ‘eog-f23-d3dafc9cf48.xdgapp’? Do we add a build-serial to make it clear > what bundle > is newer - e.g. ‘eog-f23-14-d3dafc9cf48.xdgapp’ ? * How do we know what authorisations each application needs to be able to run properly? How do we avoid applications overreaching and asking for access for things they don't need, or silently failing to work because the xdg-app bundle didn't offer enough? If we're going to have to manually create the manifests to list those, what difference would it make compared to doing those in their respective upstreams? -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
