Hi, You're right, we hadn't yet planned for how to handle spins (at least I'm unaware of any such plans). Don't worry, nobody's going to start removing packages if that means making apps inaccessible to folks not using Workstation. Some compatibility story is clearly needed beforehand. Igor suggested that dnf could transparently switch to installing a Flatpak, for instance. Also, keep in mind that Flatpaks are not the only new type of software we intend to support in Fedora. I know other folks are looking into supporting Docker containers; I believe that's a Server WG initiative? This is why all our packages just moved under the rpms namespace in Fedora git. On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 21:46 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > I suspect this view originates in a very Gnomeish view of the world > where upstream and the Fedora packagers are very close but I wonder > how > well it matches with situations where upstream and distros have a > more > antagonistic relationship... It's designed for third party application developers; packages work great for big coherent projects like GNOME and KDE that all distros package, but they're terrible for an upstream developer trying to distribute one piece of software to users on 20 different distros. By making [specific, approved] upstream Flatpaks accessible in GNOME Software, no longer does upstream have to deal with Fedora packagers saying "you can't bundle this and that" or "your package doesn't build with GCC 74" or "this violates or packaging guidelines," nor worry about downstream patches causing different behavior in different distros. Instead, Fedora just gets out of the way. The thinking is that this will make upstreams like us more... especially since it allows them to control the pace of updates. Michael -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
