On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 16:45 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > Well, if a packager wants to maintain it, why not? > > As someone who's a bit skeptical about containers as the future of > software > distribution, I'd like to continue getting "traditionally packaged" > applications from Fedora where possible. I became a Fedora packager > as a > large part because I wanted to expand the pool of such software that > was > available in Fedora, by making it available to other users. It seems > like > that's not a thing we're going to care about as much going forward, > which I > guess is... fine, but I kind of have mixed feelings about the whole > thing. > > I suspect I am in a minority here, though. No, we'll still need RPM packages for lots and lots and lots of applications. They're not going away. In the specific case where upstream decides to ship a Flatpak and wants to distribute that Flatpak in Fedora, then it seems advantageous to make that available in Fedora rather than our RPMs, so you get updates from upstream, exactly the way upstream intends, on upstream's schedule, that run the same on every distro, without conflicting with Fedora packages. There's a huge technical advantage to that. But most upstreams are not going to adopt this technology; it's just an option to make distributing your application easier. Packagers are still needed to package stuff that's not yet available on Fedora, same as always. As for whether we should start discussing this... seems it's happening. :) Michael -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
