On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:04 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 12:44:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > "Promote as the Proper Way To Get Apps On GNOME / Fedora Desktop" would > > NOT be great. Having spent a lot of time thinking about both sides of > > the debate I'm still firmly in the 'coherent distribution is the ideal > > state' camp. Upstream distribution is probably never going to go away > > entirely, and it'd be good to make it as painless and reliable as > > possible _where it's really necessary to use it_. But it should never be > > the primary/preferred method of software distribution on Fedora, in my > > opinion. It should always be an exception. > > I really would like all my desktop applications to run in a sandbox, whether > they come from upstream directly or from us. I would like that too, to be clear. That is why I used the term "upstream distribution" and not the term "sandboxed apps". Sandboxing is a desirable technology for both upstream and centralized distribution, which makes its conflation with upstream distribution unfortunate in this debate: I think that has come about because sandboxing is arguably more _urgently_ desirable for upstream distribution, but what we're really arguing about here is the old 'upstream vs. distro-based' chestnut, not sandboxing. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
