On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 20:08 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 20:53 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > > I mean I really hope you're not saying that upstream developers > > will > > be > > able to start demanding that a third party packager's work is > > removed > > from Fedora! > Hm... it's not supposed to be an antagonistic process. We were > expecting it to be more of an "oh, upstream made a Flatpak, that's > better than an RPM, so let's switch to that now." This its bit of an edge-case I still think it should be noted - some mostly GUI apps can also be used as command line utilities. One example is the above mentioned Inkscape - you can call the inkscape binary and use it to non-interactively manipulate SVG files. Would that still work as expected when calling the Flatpak packaged Inkscape (eq. wont the sandbox interfere & would the binary be even accessible in a reasonable way from the command line) ? In any case it currently works fine with the RPM packaged Inkscape. > > Certainly we're not going to come along and try to delete packages > over > the maintainers' objections. In general, I expect package maintainers > would be deciding whether or not to make the switch, but yeah: if the > upstream developers request that we switch to their Flatpak, I would > hope that package maintainers would be willing to accommodate > upstream. > In the unlikely event that upstream gets into conflict with the > Fedora > packager over whether to replace the package with a Flatpak (or > upstream-provided RPM), the current plan was for that to be handled > on > a case-by-case basis by FESCo. Hopefully such situations would be > quite > rare. > > Michael > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject > .org -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
