On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:24:26PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > > I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in place, > > there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak. > Well, assuming that turns out to be the case, should our packaging > guidelines eventually become "do not make RPM packages of end-user > applications but instead make a downstream flatpak package"? I'd probably > have mixed feelings about this, too, and it's not what the Workstation > proposal suggests at the moment, either, but it seems to be where we're > eventually leading here. > > Or, we could have tooling to turn a RPM into a flatpak, perhaps (I know > there's a script to do this for AppImages), and use this in our build > infrastructure? Yes, is the direction I'm thinking. The Layered Image Build Service we have for Docker can automatically rebuild when there are updates to component RPMs, and it'd be nice if we could channel Flatpak through that. Flatpak does have a little bit of awkwardness, though, since it needs to understand nonstandard paths and locations, so it'd probably involve rebuilding the RPMs, or at least some kind of crazy rearranging of binaries. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
