----- Original Message ----- > On Wed, 2018-02-14 at 15:52 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote: > > * There are a lot of popularly reviewed applications in Fedora that > > are *not* on Flathub. > > Hi, > just out of interest, what with the applications which have their > flatpak scripts, but which do not fit Flathub? > > Maybe this had been answered already somewhere, I only missed it, thus > if so, I apologize for repeating the question, but just in case: will > Fedora provide its own Flatpak repository, thus one could rely on > versions of the host dependencies? No, the Flatpak and host are separate. I'm guessing that you're worried about mismatches between evolution-data-server and its clients. There's really no other way to make this work than to work towards a stable, and versioned API. > If not, and the plan is to use > Flathub exclusively, will Fedora push the applications there instead of > the upstream/package maintainer in case where the upstream/package > maintainer is not in favor of github, the place where Flathub is > hosted? The upstream maintainer doesn't have to use Flathub, and GitHub, but they'd have to replicate the setup. Which is one of the reasons why people use Flathub to build and distribute those rather than doing it themselves separately. > But I believe Fedora cannot use Flathub this way, because it > cannot guarantee host dependencies there and also because Flathub is > meant to be unrelated to any distribution (I understand it that way at > least). Flatpak cannot guarantee host dependencies either. That's both a feature and a bug, making it harder to build applications that rely on specific versions of host services, outside the sandbox, and easier to upgrade applications without pulling new dependencies at the host level. _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
