On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Is this what relocatable packages are supposed to solve? http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/ch-rpm-reloc.html -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
