On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 03:02:29PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I was thinking remove the Fedora package. What's the point in > maintaining a secret Fedora package for a graphical app, when we're > going to be presenting a different version of that app to users? And as > Josh says, this would also create confusion regarding where to report > bugs, and also confusion when users have two different sets of bugs > depending on whether you use a Fedora package or the upstream Flatpak. Yeah, I'm really concerned about that particular confusion. I think the new design for Software makes it reasonably clear at install time. But, there's an inherent tension between making Flatpak software run seamlessly and making sure users always know where blame (and credit!) go for bugs and packaging problems. I'm also worried about lifecycle issues here. What if some popular upstream makes a popular Flatpak, we ditch the RPM packaging, and then upstream stops updating it, or does a horrible job - how do we get _back_? Another concern is automated installation. Right now, one can do kickstart installs for Workstation which pull in all desired apps. One can even run a local mirror to make this faster and more reliable. But how will this work if some (arbitrary?) apps need to be pulled from third parties somewhere? For that matter, are all Flatpak applications going to be third party? I've been assuming that we'll have a way to package software in this way *within Fedora*. Having a large application ecosystem is key, and honestly, I don't see that as likely without our _own_ effort. So much to figure out, here! -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
