Urgh, unfinished trains of thought. ----- Original Message ----- > > * Benefit to Fedora contributors: they can make their packaging work > > available across distributions and distribution versions. > > Most likely duplicating upstream work on getting that same ...on getting that same application into end-users hands. What do you think would happen to the opt-in creation of Fedora Flatpaks if you get none of the benefits of being able to empower upstream with maintaining that package? > > * Benefit to upstream: if they already have a good relationship with Fedora > > and their application is well maintained there, they can point users on all > > distributions to a Fedora Flatpak. > > * Benefit to Red Hat: We build infrastructure technology and content that > > we > > can take into the RHEL context and make runtimes and Flatpaks available to > > our customers with the type of guarantees that we are already providing for > > RPM content. > > That doesn't seem to require That doesn't seem to require the Flatpaks to be build from binary RPMs, or RPMs at all. The Fedora/RHEL runtime is part of the OS, so no duplication of work, but packaging application-supporting libraries would be. _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
