Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 21:02 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit : > > Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01: > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> that's all true but you can be pretty sure if a "app-store" with > >> bundeled applications exists *nobody* would package and maintain > >> them as RPM -> everybody would point with his finger to the app > > > > No because RPM packages apps *do* have benifits .. otherwise we > > wouldn't have this discussion. > > > >> if it goes in that direction, and it starts faster than anybody likes > >> you do a dramatical harm to the userbase which likes the consistent > >> package managment and *really used* conecpt of shared libraries > > > > Again those are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You can have sandboxed *and* > > rpm packaged apps at the same time. > > the most imporant word in your answer is *CAN* > > but you will not, nobody will package whatever application > as RPM if he is fine with the app-store, so you *could* > have both but i doubt at the end of the day it will happen If no one think that using a rpm is bringing any value, then indeed, no one will do the job. Now, if someone think this is better for whatever reasons, then this someone will do the job. It seems that your fear is that if people are not forced to make rpm, they will not see the value of doing so, and so would not do it. So if that's the problem, then the solution is to demonstrate the value of packaging and rpm rather than restricting all others alternatives. -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
